Smith’s Wager, A Counter to Pascal
October 28, 2007
The following is an excerpt from a speech given by George Smith before the Society of Separationists in 1976. I hope that you enjoy it as much as I did. The full speech will be placed in the Toolbox section tomorrow.
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 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 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.
Comments
6 Responses to “Smith’s Wager, A Counter to Pascal”
Got something to say?
-
Atheist Blogroll
wow…I want to respect your position…but you ignore that we are whole human beings. There is more to life and being human that being rational. If I am wrong just call me Data.
I think Christianity unites reason and compassion for humanity in brilliance. When I read Pascal’s argument I do not think he had the convinced atheist in mind. Smith’s emotionally charged conclusion shows that.
Basically all of humanity, through all of the ages, has believed in something beyond themselves, something spiritual. Is Pascal’s argument really for those who are considering atheism or agnostisism?
I can see why one might be driven to atheism by the unloving and barbarous use of spirituality. That kind of abuse can be seen in Christianity’s history and present but this is not what a Christ follower is about. It is, however, what the power hungry prestige seeker is all about. Abuse flows from people who seek power. Jesus was not seeking to control humanity but to empower them to love completely and live in the joy of deep relationships as well as to help those in need.
There are many definitions of the word “reason.” From Websters:
I do not see how you can claim that a faith based system, which Christianity is, unites reason and compassion. Faith is the complete opposite of reason, else it would not be faith but fact.
Well, it wouldn’t make much sense to present an argument to someone that already sees things your way, now would it?
I am not drawn to atheism due to the actions of others. I am an atheist because the alternatives present no factual or empirical evidence that leads me to believe otherwise. As many have pointed out, one does not need Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, to “love completely and live in the joy of deep relationships as well as to help those in need.” I would contend that a person who does those things without prompting from an outside source is a far better person than the one who does those things only out of fear of hellfire or bribery of heavenly treasure.
The only thing that comes to mind is a quote from a favorite holiday movie, “Miracle On 34th Street”:
“Faith” is believing in things when Common Sense tells you not to.
Anything is rational that has sufficient reason, so faith is not the opposite of reason. One reason for having faith in God: the desire to experience God. There isn’t anything inherently irrational about wanting to experience something that could actually exist.
It’s the omniscient quality of God that makes the issue so confusing, I think. Unlike, say, an invisible pink polka-dotted elephant, God would know whether or not you believe in God, and so it seems intuitive to think that one who believes is more likely to catch a glimpse. So to tell a theist that having faith is unreasonable is tantamount to telling a hunter that it’s unreasonable to carry a gun, or an astronomer that it’s unreasonable to use a telescope. Theists are looking for a particular thing, and faith is our tool.
Atheists seem to be barking up the wrong tree, saying that it’s belief itself that is irrational instead of the particular doctrines of Christianity, many of which seem totally illogical. Ironically, though, this seems to be more effective at creating doubt.
Yes, yes there is. And for the very reasons that you just stated. Just because you wish to experience god does not justify the belief in a god. What you are basically saying is, “God exists because I want him to exist.”
The human mind is fascinating, is it not? You are more likely to “catch a glimpse” simply because you want to. (Very similar to the Placebo Effect.) Voodoo works on much the same principal. The analogies that you put forth simply do not work. The hunter knows that the prey he seeks does indeed exist. The astronomer knows without a shadow of a doubt that various phenomena exists in the heavens. In both of your examples, they would just be ill prepared.
S.J,
One reason for believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster: the desir eto experience the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There isn’t anything irrational about wanting to experience something that could exist.
It is the omniscient quality of th Flying Spaghetti Monster that makes the issue so confusing, I think. Unlike, say, The Christian God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster would know whether or not you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and so it seems intuitive to think that one who believes is more likely to catch a glimpse. So, to tell a pastafarian that having faith is unreasonable is tantamount to telling a hunter that it is unreasonable to carry a gun, or an astronomer that it’s unreasonable to use a telescope. Pastafarians are looking for a particular thing, and faith is our tool.
What you have described is called “Observational Bias”. It is a logical fallacy.
Arrrrrr, Matey,
Rival