A couple of years ago I was having a debate with a born again Christian. It was pretty typical as far as debates go, lots of rambling about, short focus, and of course talk of mythical prophecies and threatening afterwards. At the end of the conversation he meekly asked me: "Wouldn't you become a Christian just in case there is a hell?Of course, this is the whole idea of Pascal's Wager. "You may as well just accept Jesus Christ as your savior, just in case there is a hell."
Needless to say, I didn't find this a convincing enough argument. By adhering to this argument, I would systematically be suspending all logic and reason, throwing it out the window with all my secular toys, and setting down a "new rules of engagement" in which to continue living my life. "Just say NO" then became my "infidel" Mantra.
A similar situation was presented to me shortly after 9/11. I received a uniform lecture (disguised as sibling concern,) from my sister. As my friend before her, she as well is one of those "lucky enough" to have been "born again," and as a good soldier, began the argument to save my poor, lost soul.
She expressed her concerns that I had better hurry and accept Jesus Christ (the end of the world seeming at hand,) in order to redeem what decent qualities I had left, and in doing so, I would simultaneously save myself from the fiery pit called Hell. It seemed after a while that she was delivering some kind of Christian sales pitch. I didn't ask her if there was a free toaster that came with the redemption, but felt like just for having to endure the seemingly never-ending diatribe, they would at least offer some kind of incentive!
Of course, in the aftermath of 9/11, the "sales pitch" had more fervor than it has seen in a long time. The tragedy becoming a sort of spooky paradigm, or call to arms. A reminder to the sinners, that Pascal's Wager is still very much on the table, only the bet now more dire, more of a gamble than ever, and the Evangelists wasted no time in reminding "Infidels" like me.
Fast forward to present day--once again we find ourselves at War. There are "End Of Times" posters at my apartment complex. Bible sales are once again going up, just as they did after 9/11. The thumbing of Bibles is becoming more main stream than ever, and according to some, the "wager" could just be the last chance for sinners such as myself. Now, as we are at War, can we accept that perhaps Pascal's Wager is a better bet for us to take? As we see the Government's "threat" chart changing colors, are we better off just to accept Pascal's Wager?
The answer in my opinion is an unequivocal no. There should be no difference in the wager that Pascal proposed, in light of circumstances that some consider more tenable, or more probable than improbable, to happen.
The famous War proverb: “There are no atheists in Foxholes," was always a curious non-argument for me. I first heard this in an episode of M*A*S*H back in the early 1980’s. (Yes I am that old.) I remember curiously pondering if indeed I were in a Foxhole, would I find myself praying, or pleading with "God" that I was sorry to have been so stubborn? To "please accept my apologies now."
Primarily this sounded disingenuous to me. In the event that I did have a change of heart-- saying a quick prayer to God--abandoning my previous stance on the idea of his existence, isn't it more likely than unlikely, that after I exited the Foxhole, or was no longer in danger, that I would only resort immediately back to the stance I carried before I was in imminent danger? And if the answer to this were "Yes," then wouldn't God know, in his omniscience, that I was disingenuous in the first place?
Perhaps the person in the Foxhole would need to first think of my above-mentioned assertion, before getting into the Foxhole. Or, perhaps am I being too arrogant in thinking that I could be so noble that I could absolve from hoping there is a God, in the light of dire physical harm, or even with the earnest possibility of death?
I suppose these guidelines discussed would fall under the Fideist position. In fact, during my "evolution" from Christian, to Non-Theist, was I a Fideist for many years. I would imagine that most otherwise intelligent people, who say they believe in a God, would fall under the guise of Fideism. In fact, Pascal's Wager should have had a footnote at the bottom of his theses, with recommended reading of the very declaration.
When we look at the whole of Pascal's theses, the word Wager really compromises the essence of belief because of faith.
In wagering that there is a God, to prevent yourself from going to a mythical land of fire and tar, you then agree to throw away intellectual honesty, replacing it with a mythical belief system that perhaps was better practiced during a time in history where one's life was to be decided on a daily basis.
I suspect that Pascal found his proposition harmless, and yet I believe there is an intrinsic harm in a belief based on faith alone. Throughout history, the world has suffered great loss, where it has been that religion has been a backdrop to a final agenda. When you believe in something that has no reason to exist, other than for the comfort of man's fear of his own mortality, you are inevitably opening a Pandora's box that once opened, will release a world of demons and fear only defeated through logic and reason. With logic and reason set aside because of mythical purpose, our world will continue to be in danger of suffering and circumstance brought by the hands of religious propagandists.
For someone that has evolved in their religious beliefs as myself, it should come to no surprise that the compromise to wager there is a "God" would never be as rewarding as the constant gift of knowledge and the continual pursuit of education. This is something that we will never need a wager in order to determine that it is indeed, a good thing.
Andrea W. Royall-Jones
Submitted by Andrea W. Royall-Jones on 3/21/2003
[Our apologies for posting it so late!]
- Ethical Atheist
[Created: 10/24/2003]
[Last Update: n/a]