Radiolab is my favorite podcast, and the only one I listen to with any frequency. They have interesting subject matter, usually focused on a scientific topic of some kind, and furthermore have just amazing editing. They've restored my faith in radio, if I can say such a thing.
I was listening to their last episode, "Are You Sure?" while doing the dishes last night. They were finishing up a section on poker strategy: the first time I've heard pot odds explained. I'm not a gambler, but now that I know mental math's involved...
Out of the blue, they are talking about Pascal's Wager as being "pot odds on God". I stand there, rinsing my incredibly unmatched collection of silverware, waiting for Jad & Robert to blow this thing out of the water and...they don't.
Incredibly disappointed. Beyond that, in fact, because in presenting Pascal's Wager as (at least very possibly) valid, my favorite science-promotin' radio personae have effectively proselytized for a Christian god, for any gullible listeners out there. Distressing
One of my philosophy professors said to the class once: there are three kinds of logic. Inductive, deductive, and seductive, and the last category isn't actually logic at all. The Wager is a prime example of seductive logic--on first listen, if you're a person who is somewhat persuaded by rational argument, it sounds great.
So: it's about whether or not to believe in God. The basic argument goes: if God exists, and I believe, I give up some things I might otherwise have done in my life, but if I get infinite happiness in the blessed afterlife etc. If he doesn't exist, the worst that can happen by believing falsely is, again, I give up some things I might otherwise have done in my life. But, and this of course is the kicker, if he exists and I don't believe, punishment for all eternity.
Let's see if I can remember how to do html tables: this might help.
| God Exists | God Doesn't Exist | |
| Believe | Heaven! (Infinite gain) | Made sacrifices for belief. (Finite loss) |
| Don't Believe | Hell! (Infinite loss) | Lived the godless life you really wanted. (Finite gain) |
Put this way, belief in God is a "good bet".
I want to rip this to shreds on a couple of different levels. Please note: not doing this out of purely atheist peevishness. This argument is bunk, and many theists have also been zapping it since it was first proposed.
By the way, fun fact, don't trust any quasi-mathematical/logical argument that uses "infinity" or "eternity" in any capacity.
Problem One: Belief.
So, Pascal, God is a sucker, and will buy it when you claim to "believe" after using this gambling-style logic for your own benefit?
Blaise actually addresses this, essentially saying "fake it until you make it"--profess a belief and live according to it until you come to really believe it, even if in the beginning you were only paying it lip service. Weirdly honest... Many theists have a problem with this approach, though, arguing that if an omniscient God cares about your belief, he's going to want it to be more genuine.
Corollary problem: is belief enough? Many takes on divine beings require practice, action of various kinds. Satan and, by extension, at least some stripes of Satanists would hold a belief in God, does that mean they're all good?
Problem Two: Which god?
There are incompatible takes on the Christian God. Pick wrong, you might go to hell.
Gets worse. The main branches of faith in the Abrahamic God (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) disagree pretty severely in many areas. Pick wrong, you might go to hell.
Gets worse. There's a much bigger number of extant or historical religions that have the right god to believe in. In addition to Yaweh, we've got Zeus, Shiva, and Odin lined up, to name just a few. Pick wrong, you might go someplace really exciting.
Wait, wait--there's actually an infinite number of potential things to believe in/worship. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a good one, but so's the broom in my pantry.
And, to top it off, the Real God might be a jerk-- dooming everybody at random. Bizarro God might reward nonbelievers and punish believers. Impractical God might require something we can't or won't do to get into heaven (befriending a dinosaur, dancing on another planet, eating your firstborn, etc). Basically Not Interested God might only offer heaven to lemurs and marigolds, everybody else burns. Incomprehensible God might just be something too weird for us to wrap our heads around (actually many theists would agree with some version of this), so it's difficult to say what "belief" in such a good really means.
And, to show my atheist colors a bit: there's really no evidential reason to prefer one of these gods to the others; that's one of the things the Pastafarians and Discordians are pointing out.
So now, from the gambler's perspective, we have an incredibly low chance of picking the right god to believe in (and then also having to hold the right beliefs/lifestyles required by that god). Suddenly the "no-brainer" wager doesn't look so smart. Especially given:
Problem Three: What are we actually sacrificing?
Theists who deploy the Wager to actually convince non-believers are typically going to phrase the sacrifice as: maybe you'll have a little less fun, but you'll be basically being a better person as a bonus, and you still get the main reward of harp + wings, avoid the brimstoning. Like, c'mon guys, do the math here: a little less whorin' and murderin' in return for eternal paradise. That's easy, right?
There are large number of reasons to view the impact of organized religion on human individuals and societies with a great deal of concern, as many of those impacts are extremely negative. Some directly so, such as the formal institution of various types of sexism, classism, and patriarchy. There is good reason to believe that religion is a major source of avoidable neuroses and mental anguish, and it is obviously at the root of some of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, continuing into the present day. The indirect effects include the crippling of human intellect and curiosity, resulting in societies less able to address vital ecological, social, or medical issues, and more susceptible to manipulation by the moneyed upper classes. To name just a few...
In Conclusion: Pascal's Wager totally sucks, don't take it, don't spread it around unless you immediately debunk it.
In All Fairness: Pascal did formulate the math & physics allowing hydraulics, and hydraulics are super-sweet.
Radiolab, and all you dear readers, stay critical!
No comments:
Post a Comment