The question of theism vs. atheism has been seen, quite rightly, in terms of which premise is true. But after millennia of failure to prove the issue either way, should we not move on to the next question? If we don’t (and probably can’t) know which premise is true, possibly we can determine which is most worth betting on.
Pascal, in my opinion, gave us a good start, but failed to take his reasoning far enough. He stopped at the God of the New Testament, and figured that the benefit of betting on this deity and being right would far outweigh the benefit of betting against him and being right. Conversely the punishment for betting against this deity and being wrong – yada yada.
But the God of Pascal’s wager was arbitrary. It could have just (or almost) as rationally been Allah. And this deity administers rewards or punishes based not on people’s ethics but on their believing the right spiritual sales-pitch. Furthermore, those rewards or punishments are both exorbitant and eternal. Those two factors make him not only arbitrary; but unjust and evil. Would our Creator, who designed our sense of justice, then reward us for worshiping an apparently unjust God?
Let’s take Pascal a step further. What is the most sensible bet a human can make, given the uncertainty of an afterlife? If we love justice, an unjust God cannot possibly get us to worthwhile life, so that option is out.
1. We can bet on no afterlife and grab for the greatest pleasures available without regard for ethics.
2. We can bet on an afterlife with just rewards and punishments, and behave so as to deserve what we want.
But what are the odds that a just God is out there, given what we have seen of this planet? Close to zero – unless there is an afterlife in which everyone gets exactly what he deserves. Since there is no demonstrably reliable evidence for or against an afterlife, there is absolutely no way to judge those odds.
Therefore, I would assert that an afterlife with just rewards and punishments is a reasonable bet – not because of any compendium of allegedly holy scriptures, but largely in spite of them all. Nevertheless, one necessary precondition of a just community is to have just persons in charge of it. And strangely enough, most Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe their God to be somehow just and righteous – often despite scriptural evidence to the contrary. Each of these religions, in fact, holds both a just and an unjust version of its respective God – one who rewards and punishes appropriately, and one who rewards and punishes inappropriately. Therefore, instead of trying to convert others to our own religion (or lack of it) should we not be trying to convert them to the just version of their own God?
If ultimate justice does not exist, then nihilism – God or no God. If ultimate justice does exist, what are the necessary preconditions of it?
1. an afterlife
2. a just being (or group of beings) in charge of it
3. just enforcement throughout it
This, I contend, is our only chance of worthwhile life, and therefore not only a reasonable bet, but the only reasonable bet.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 51
Who is this that passes muster on the Living God? What is just punishment for transgressions before a thrice holy God?
And, Cary, shall you also decide just rewards? Hasn't your God-given sense of justice suffered the effects of the Fall just like the rest of us?
“But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
“So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
Matthew 20:13-16
you also query:
Would our Creator, who designed our sense of justice, then reward us for worshiping an apparently unjust God?
Is God really unjust or only apparently so?
And strangely enough, most Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe their God to be somehow just and righteous – often despite scriptural evidence to the contrary.
These are grave charges which you toss out there flippantly and yet with no Scripture to accompany. Isn't God, by definition, just?
Shall the clay rise up against the Potter and question his designs?
Amazingly, though your premises are flawed, your article ends with a grand conclusion!
1. an afterlife
2. a just Being in charge of it (amended, a bit)
3. just enforcement throughout it
That being said, however, this destination is not arrived via the trolley of reason. This is not a betting matter, some item of probability charts. This is, rather, a certain revelation gifted to us by the sovereign Living God of the universe and accessed via saving faith. . .
-Mark
What are you talking about? It has been proved to billions. You failing to obtain proof, does not a a lack of proof prove ; )
But the God of Pascal’s wager was arbitrary. It could have just (or almost) as rationally been Allahâ€
He took his reasoning exactly where he wanted it to go and how far he wanted it to go, but you are taking it somewhere it wasn’t meant to go.
You are using Pascal’s wager to ascribe other attributes that do not exist from this wager. As in the explanation from Wiki, this wager is nothing but a bet that one should/could probably exercise faith, but it is not at all ascribing the acceptance of the bet to a specific faith that is of salvation. He is not speaking of coming to faith with this wager; merely showing that it is reasonable to come to faith by accepting the wager.
“However, Pascal did not treat acceptance of the wager to be in itself sufficient for salvation. In the same note where the wager is found, Pascal goes on to explain that understanding his conclusion is just the impetus for faith, not faith itself:â€
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
Don't bore me with Pascal. Address my logic.
Pascal doesn't include the possibility of a god's punishment if one chooses to bet against his existence.
Pascal creates a false dilemma (a logical fallacy) that there are only two possibilities.... a benevolent God exists and punishes or rewards according to one's belief or a benevolent God does not exist.
Pascal avers that faith is a decision...excluding the possibility that it may not be possibly to make oneself believe (choose to believe).
In Pascals' notes, he explains that he is simply offering an argument for a REASON to believe...not an argument FOR the belief.
This excludes logic from the wager.
So to the logic of: "If ultimate justice does not exist, then nihilism – God or no God."
This statement is logically flawed...if ultimate justice does not exist there is but one result...nihilism...belief in nothing. But if ultimate justice does not exist...there can still be the brief that it does exist.
"If we love justice, an unjust God cannot possibly get us to worthwhile life, so that option is out."
This is subject to what one considers to be a worthwhile life and even an unjust god may not be universally and completely unjust. Additionally, the concept of "justice" is not very clear. We often consider "justice to have been served", for example, when we send a lawbreaker to prison.
"Justice is generally understood to mean what is right, fair, appropriate, deserved. Justice is achieved when an unjust act is redressed and the victim feels whole again. Justice also means the offender is held accountable for his behavior.” – source
The Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.
Each of the three points in this definition is subjective.
"If ultimate justice does exist, what are the necessary preconditions of it?
1. an afterlife
2. a just being (or group of beings) in charge of it
3. just enforcement throughout it
This, I contend, is our only chance of worthwhile life, and therefore not only a reasonable bet, but the only reasonable bet."
If ultimate justice DOES exist...the 'justice' may be punishment...with the afterlife as that punishment...not allowing one to cease to exist.
The whole notion that one must or even should consider the consequences of the way in which he leads his life...based on the speculation that a god might exist and if that god does exist...he might be a fair and just god is the one part of the basis for the creation of the concept of god as a pacifier...a security blanket. The other part is the need for a protector.
Logic and religion or spiritual matters are not compatible Cary. Religion and logic could co-exist if there were actually a god and the existence of that god could be proved.
I would really like to respond to your material because I've seen you say good stuff elsewhere. But seriously, I don't know what you're talking about here. Forget Pascal. I don't want to go back and read him because I've already gotten what I want from him. Let's just do the logic, and keep it to one subject, or it will explode in tangents.
"So to the logic of: "If ultimate justice does not exist, then nihilism – God or no God."
This statement is logically flawed...if ultimate justice does not exist there is but one result...nihilism...belief in nothing. But if ultimate justice does not exist...there can still be the brief [belief?] that it does exist."
What I meant by it is this:
If ultimate justice does not exist, then existence isn't worth shit – God or no God.
Whether or not anyone believes it's worth something, doesn't change the fact that it's not worth anything.
Whether or not anyone believes justice exists, doesn't change the fact that it doesn't exist.
If I revised it to say something like that, would you still object?
Let's do take this one item at a time.
"If ultimate justice does not exist, then existence isn't worth shit – God or no God."
For ultimate justice to exist, there must be a god.
If ultimate justice does not exist, there is either no god, or a god who does not deal in justice, but in either case, existence isn't worth a shit if ultimate justice does not exist.
Do I have this right so far? (my version of what you have said)
And...ultimate justice is defined by you as an "afterlife with just rewards and punishments".
So unless there is an afterlife...no one's life is really worth living.
Is this right?
For the atheist, the existence of the universe is motive-free. The universe exists because it does and so do we. I believe our life is a chemical/electrical process. When that process ends...we cease to exist. The offer of an afterlife is meaningless to me.
We were born to be alive and then we die. So what? Does this affect the emotional joy of the exchange of love we share...the taste of our favorite food, the laughter we enjoy...the pleasure of our physical lives? Not for me. If this means that our lives are actually meaningless.."shit"...then yes I agree with you Cary. But I think we each determine the meanings of our own lives.
Our difference appears to be nothing more than a difference in what it takes to satisy us with existence. No point in me trying to talk you out of your satisfaction. I don't like to think we've already reached the limit of our usefulness to each other, but it looks that way. Possibly some other post, some other time.
My agenda does not consist of changing another beliefs or belief systems...it is the conversation in which I am interested...the debate...the exchange.
Good bye.
You're here for the exchange, and I'm here to find stable conclusions and move on, so in a sense, we're at cross purposes. But I will continue to solicit your input because of its value.
Later.
You want a stable conclusion to the question of the "meaning of life"?
Just kidding...but you really do not understand the difference, I think, between "one's satisfaction with one's existence" and what makes our individual lives meaningful.
If you have time and are interested...HERE is a very well written article by Keith Augustine (M.A. Philosophy, University of Maryland, College Park).
Perhaps our paths will cross again.
Cary, let's get this part straight, at least. I'm not the one who initially used Pascal to make my point. You were the one who said, “Pascal, in my opinion, gave us a good start, but failed to take his reasoning far enough."
Is Pascal's reasoning different from Pascal's logic? Of course, no one owns logic, and logic itself is pre-existing so people apply it but don't create it. I can't imagine you don't know that is a given that everyone would already know, but if you think it isn't, as you seem to imply with your answer, I doubt it would be worth continuing the discussion. You are using Pascal's application of logic in this post, and if you didn't want to do that then I suggest a writing course so you can express yourself more clearly.
Cary Cook Sep 21, 2009, 12:26am EDT
"This is not about Pascal. It's about logic. Pascal's logic existed before Pascal discovered it, and goes beyond where Pascal took it whether Pascal Likes it or not."
Just one more thing...People don't discover logic, at least logical people don't. I suppose people who are illogical might find logic to be some kind of discovery, though.
"I know not who put me into the world, nor what the world is, nor what I myself am. I am in terrible ignorance of everything. I know not what my body is, nor my senses, nor my soul, not even that part of me which thinks what I say, which reflects on all and on itself, and knows itself no more than the rest. I see those frightful spaces of the universe which surround me, and I find myself tied to one corner of this vast expanse, without knowing why I am put in this place rather than in another, nor why the short time which is given me to live is assigned to me at this point rather than at another of the whole eternity which was before me or which shall come after me. I see nothing but infinites on all sides, which surround me as an atom and as a shadow which endures only for an instant and returns no more. All I know is that I must soon die, but what I know least is this very death which I cannot escape.
"As I know not whence I come, so I know not whither I go. I know only that, in leaving this world, I fall for ever either into annihilations or into the hands of an angry God, without knowing to which of these two states I shall be for ever assigned. Such is my state, full of weakness and uncertainty. And from all this I conclude that I ought to spend all the days of my life without caring to inquire into what must happen to me. Perhaps I might find some solution to my doubts, but I will not take the trouble, nor take a step to seek it; and after treating with scorn those who are concerned with this care, I will go without foresight and without fear to try the great event, and let myself be led carelessly to death, uncertain of the eternity of my future state."
Who would desire to have for a friend a man who talks in this fashion? Who would choose him out from others to tell him of his affairs? Who would have recourse to him in affliction? And indeed to what use in life could one put him?
In truth, it is the glory of religion to have for enemies men so unreasonable; and their opposition to it is so little dangerous that it serves, on the contrary, to establish its truths. For the Christian faith goes mainly to establish these two facts: the corruption of nature, and redemption by Jesus Christ. Now I contend that, if these men do not serve to prove the truth of the redemption by the holiness of their behaviour, they at least serve admirably to show the corruption of nature by sentiments so unnatural.
excerpted from Pensee #194 by Blaise Pascal
-Mark
2. We can bet on an afterlife with just rewards and punishments, and behave so as to deserve what we want.
I don't accept your choices. There are reasons other than reward and punishment in an afterlife to choose to live justly. Those who "grab for the greatest pleasures available without regard for ethics" find that those pleasures become unsatisfying. Experience teaches us that caring for others brings its own pleasure, a pleasure that endures.
But I agree with you that I didn't say it well. If you can think of a better way to say it, please let me know.
whose ethics?
-Mark
I think Mark's question is a good one.
I personally am a practicing (though not a believing) Buddhist. The reason it works for me is, it answers Mark's question and suggests a way to both understand and work around Cary's observation that people act without regard to ethics, even when they have discovered that this is unsatisfying.
By learning about myself (through meditation and mindfulness), I am gradually finding the various ways my actions are unsatisfactory. Without some sort of path to self-observation, many people simply repeat actions that aren't working for them.
And for me, ethics is defined as learning to want for others the things we all want -- happiness, peace of mind, physical safety, a sense of security, health, sufficient prosperity to live with ease and joy.
I'm not saying -- at all! -- that everyone should be Buddhist. But for me, Buddhism has provided a template to understand what is wrong with the world, a set of practices that help me set some things right, and a clear sense of ethical direction that helps keep me from going too far astray.
Metta!
Shira
Hi Shira,
But isn't this just a grabbing for the pleasures you just railed against in your first comment?
As for the things we all want part. Aren't you making a rash assumption here? Do we all want the same things? The Epicureans had a very well-developed ethic of their own. I'll paraphrase it by reciting from memory the old Schlitz beer mantra:
"You only go around once in life so ya gotta grab for all the gusto you can - even in the beer you drink!"
Is this what you're on about?
Metta!
-Mark
I try to chose my pleasures wisely, and with less grabbing, nowadays. (My success rates vary, but I think the trend is upward.) This may well have a correspondence to Epicureanism, but although I've read about that a bit, I've never tried to PRACTICE it, so I'll plead ignorance.
As for what we all want, it's a working assumption is all. I'm not making claims about my beliefs being absolutely true. So, I quibble with your word rash, lol.
In any case, my original intent was to contest the idea that belief in an afterlife with just rewards and punishments is a necessary underpinning to ethics. So let me ask, what is the guiding principle of your ethics?
Shira
It is either the Holy Spirit or it is sin. More often than I'd like to admit, it is sin. . .
For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
-Mark
Let's say (since we're talking about grab for the greatest pleasures available without regard for ethics) that you want something, and you can acquire it.
What do you weigh before you reach out or refrain from doing so? What factor(s) guide you in making that choice?
Shira
About a half-hour ago, I sauntered to the icebox and pulled out the carton
of mint chocolate chip ice cream. . .
I wanted a bowl and I managed to acquire it. What kind of things were working on me to effect this choice?
Were there noble reasons?
Was I hungry?
Did I covet a bowl?
Was I bored?
Did I want to eat it up to save it from being freezer-burned?
All of the above?
-Mark
Legitimate question. Since there are subjective ethics, and ethics programmed into us by our Creator, I should have specifire the latter, though it will get me hassle with the atheists. This in no way implies that our Creator ever communicated those ethics in any body of scripture.
Is this far-fetched?
Why wouldn't He?
Was He unwilling or unable to do so?
-Mark
Like the morning I went to work with one blue sock and one black. . .
Last night I decided to reach out and grab that bowl of MCC ice cream. There was a remote possibility that I might have restrained myself from doing so - I wonder what factors would have caused me to make that decision instead of the gluttonous one I actually did make?
-Mark
You have convinced me to revise my wording in the next draft of this. What if I said the following?
1. We can bet on no afterlife and behave so as to get the greatest pleasures available in this life. (Such behavior may or may not be restricted by a sense of ethics.)
2. We can bet on an afterlife with just rewards and punishments, and behave so as to deserve what we want.
Would this defuse your objections?
Would it generate any new objections?
Don't clamor for justice, hun. You really don't want justice now, do you?
Sue for mercy it is your only hope . . .
-Mark
Uhhhhh, "hun"? I don't think you know me that well,lol.
In any case, it ain't ME clamoring for justice. That is Cary's position, I believe.
I'm just pointing out that even if you believe you'll reap what you sow, you may choose to sow destruction anyway. That is, unlike Cary -- if I understand him correctly -- I don't find belief in an afterlife to be a particularly potent predictor of good behavior. Goes back to the Buddhist idea that in order to live up to our aspirations (to the extent possible), we need to be skillful, which requires both understanding and practice.
Metta!
Shira
I agree with you that fools exist, but their existence is no reason not to figure out the most sensible thing for sensible people to do.
Though afterlife-believers probably can't be shown to be more ethical than non-afterlife-believers, any given person (excluding fools) is more likely to behave ethically if he believes in an afterlife in which he will be rewarded or punished according to his ethics.
The word "fools" is your word, not mine. I'd just like to point that out. (I did a search to be sure, but it's not a word I'd normally use.)
I'm afraid I just disagree with your view that any given person (excluding fools) is more likely to behave ethically if he believes in an afterlife in which he will be rewarded or punished according to his ethics. I'd invite you to submit evidence for that view, but really, I doubt that's a productive attempt, since it's apt to degenerate into "But *I* know someone who..." lol.
I will offer the following argument, which is analogical rather than evidentiary. There are studies about crime and punishment that suggest that whether people commit crimes depends not so much on how severe the punishment is, but on the degree of certainty that they WILL be punished. Moreover, small decreases in the certainty of punishment lead to relatively large fall-offs in the deterrent effects of punishment.
Given that real-world punishment works that way, isn't it likely that (fear of) "afterworld" punishments do, too? And given that it's pretty easy for people to disbelieve in punishments that take place after death, it seems likely to me that the deterrent effect is pretty watered down.
Metta! (Wishing you every TRULY good thing)
Shira
I wasn't aware of those studies about crime and punishment, but I don't doubt them.
But if uncertain punishment deters even a small amount of crime, my statement that you disagreed with remains correct.
Shira
I think your reasoning is rather poor here. Just because a logic exists, which is a rhetorical "oppposite" to yours, it does not render the logical conclusion, that those who hold a view in opposition to yours, are employing that logic.
Consider, please; One person flees a burning building, because they don't wish to be burned to death in it. Another rushes in . . but not to fry ; )
The reasons you don't believe in the God of Abraham, are not necessarily related to any great extent, to the reasons I do.
You might be interested in this article, http://bit.ly/46CieK, published recently in the Wall Street Journal, of all places.
Armstrong & Dawkins are once again interesting, but my interest is constantly assaulted and diminished by dogmatic statements.
from Prayer to ask God the Proper Use of Sickness by Blaise Pascal
www.sanityquestpublishing.com/essays/beyondPascal.html
Further criticism of my logic is welcome.