Links Shminks #15

The many possible outcomes of a Pascalian Wager render it useless.

The 10 weirdest right-wing Xian conspiracy theories

Vjack talks about Atheism+ and where it went wrong.

Richard Dawkins had a short interview on The Daily Show, and a longer interview with Jon Stewart on-line.

A great post for those wondering if a religion is harmful.

Rosa Rubicondior's take on the censorship tendencies of religion.

An atheist wonders if his rationalization to eat meat is religious in nature.

An atheist thinking about the kind of theist he could be.

And finally, a cartoon creationist needs representation.

Don't Assume Your God is an Asshole

Pascal's Wager is a gamble for a favorable afterlife built on one wild assumptions after another. If you use this, you're assuming there is a God first and foremost. Then you assume there is an afterlife. Then you assume there are multiple versions of the afterlife. Then you assume that belief can dictate where you go in the afterlife. Whether your assumptions are correct or not is no big deal up to this point, but that all changes when you assume that you know the very specific nature of God and what he wants from you. If you're wrong, then you could be the one forfeiting heaven just as easily as anyone else--Christian, Muslim, Pagan, Atheist, whatever. In fact, by making the wager you are worshipping a false idol, a damning sin in most deities books. The end result of the wager is the same for everyone. You are guessing at something that, if you are wrong, could earn you hell. Opting out of the wager is the safest move to avoid the "having other God's before Him" scenario.

The only reason to make the Christian assumptions is to accept the authority of the bible, and, let's face it, if nonbelievers did that then there would be no need for Pascal's Wager in the first place. Turning the gamble on it's head by assuming God will reward atheism and punish theism suddenly puts believers at risk. Why would God reward atheism and punish theism? I could answer "mysterious ways" here and make my wager just as valid as the next apologetic argument, but if you think about it, it is consistent with our own nature. I don't want my kids to worship at my alter, I want them to think for themselves. If I was an absentee father I certainly wouldn't expect them or likely want them to the look for me. Since God shows no sign of his existence, at least to me, He is like an absentee father, but if theists want to assume He's a narcissistic asshole as well, I hope they are comfortable in their very real codependency with a very imaginary master.

Pascal’s Assumption

The Argument from Decision Theory (Pascal’s Wager):

1. Either God exists or God doesn’t exist.
2. A person can either believe that God exists or believe that God doesn’t exist (from 1).
3. If God exists and you believe, you receive eternal salvation.
4. If God exists and you don’t believe, you receive eternal damnation.
5. If God doesn’t exist and you believe, you’ve been duped, have wasted time in religious observance, and have missed out on decadent enjoyments.
6. If God doesn’t exist and you don’t believe, then you have avoided a false belief.
7. You have much more to gain by believing in God than by not believing in him, and much more to lose by not believing in God than by believing in him (from, 3, 4, 5, and 6).
8. It is more rational to believe that God exists than to believe that he doesn’t exist (from 7).

There was a time when I thought this argument made logical sense. I first heard Pascal’s Wager from my favorite high school teacher. He taught algebra, coached football, and, not surprisingly, was highly involved with the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Back then, the only skeptical thought I had on the wager was that belief brought on by a safe bet, isn’t the faith needed for entry into heaven. It is merely smart gambling. As an atheist, I now know this is one of the flaws with the Argument from Decision Theory, but not the only one.

The second flaw in regards to Pascal’s Wager is that it does nothing to explore the probabilities of God’s existence. For example, if God’s existence is infinitesimal, then even if the cost of not believing in him is high, the overall expectation may not make it worthwhile to believe. You can see how this invalidates Pascal’s Wager by considering similar wagers. Say I told you that a vampire moved in as your neighbor, and that unless you draw a vile of your blood to leave outside every night he will break in and suck you dry. According to Pascal’s Wager, you should break out the needle and tourniquet...but you don’t. The probability of the neighboring vamp is so low that the risk of death is negligible.

The final flaw is the most damning. The wager relies on some huge-ass assumptions. It assumes that God is the Christian God, that there is a heaven and a hell, and that said Christian God will send believers to heaven and unbelievers to hell. For this argument for God to possibly work, we’d need a separate argument that shows that these assumptions are true. Since this is the supernatural we’re talking about, meaning that all bets are off, it could be that believers go to hell and nonbelievers go to heaven. Following the wager would then mean eternal torment. The possibilities are endless and therefore the probability of any one supernatural scenario (back to flaw #2) is infinitely small.

Before any vamp nerds point this out, I realize my analogy for flaw #2 is itself flawed. Vampires can’t enter your home without an invitation, so “breaking-in” is off the table. If this bothers you, please substitute “vampire” with “velociraptor” and “blood” with “chew-toy.”)