Pascal’s Wager

The French philosopher Blaise Pascal once posed the following line of reasoning: Even if the existence of God cannot be determined through reason and evidence, a rational person would wager as if God does exist because if there is no God, one loses nothing and if there is, one wins eternal life in his favor.

This argument does well to sniff out those who should stay out of the gambling den.
Pascal begins by making an assumption about the evidence for the existence of God. Though I do not entirely accept this assumption, I will accept it to argue the following point.

Pascals wager, like every wager, is based on probability. And sadly, we must ask this unanswerable question in order to establish an answer: Given there is no evidence for or against God, what is the probability of his existence? An exact answer, of course, cannot be given.

We can, however, exclude a few common answers. The probability is surely not fifty fifty, for example. If someone makes a claim for which there is no evidence, the odds of it being correct do not suddenly become fifty fifty. If that were the case, we would have to accept every whim of the human imagination as credible. In fact, considering the prevalence of Jerusalem syndrome among schizophrenics, there should be thousands of Messiahs locked away in asylums everywhere.
The lack of evidence may make it impossible to calculate odds, but it does usually make them automatically small. The grander the unsubstantiated claim, the smaller the likelihood of its correctness. So the odds are not known but they are small. One might say: incalculably small.

However small the odds are for the existence of God, we must now make them even smaller. Pascal’s wager was designed to allow him into the afterlife. Which means that not only must he be right about the existence of God, he must also pick the right God to worship. Wouldn’t he feel sheepish if, after choosing the Christian God, Pascal would find himself in a bad suburb of Hades?

Despite the incalculably small odds of picking the right God to worship, and his existing in the first place, the wager would still be perfectly rational if it would bare no cost. This seems to be the central assumption Pascal makes. say, for example, entry into heaven would entail only a declaration that one believes in God and nothing else. But there is a cost to believing in God. Every God expects one to perform a set of real world actions in order to win eternal life. The Christian God doubly so. To say nothing of forgoing ones healthy scepticism.

Finally, I have to ask: Would an all powerful judging God not see through this simple ruse? At the point of judgment would he not notice that the man standing before him decided to bypass faith and morality simply to reap eternal reward? Wouldn’t that make him a little angry? I think it might.
Let’s just hope he is more forgiving than the casino’s.

The basics of religious debate

Every time one is forced to defend his belief in a debate the arguments will be one of two simple types: The defender will either try and prove the correctness of his own claims or the fallacy in his opponents. In the case of religious arguments this is equally true and yet naturally more complicated. Following from this rule, just about all of the arguments theists bring forward in a debate fall into one of three major categories:

1. Arguments toward the existence of God or the truth of their religious beliefs. These usually include mention of the physical world, trying to show the world was deliberately created. Though I find this to be the most noble way to argue for ones religion, the advocate has his work cut out for him. He must both show the world was created by a supreme being, and then show that it was his specific supreme being that did so. God may have created the world. But which God?

2. Claims about the usefulness of religion. In these cases it is usually argued that religion makes people more moral or that prayer is shown to be good for your health. None of these arguments, of course, bare any relevance to the truth of the religious claims. Faith may be the best thing in the world for the human condition and religion would still not be true.

3. Attacking Atheists. Usually taking the form of trying to debunk evolution, cosmology and geology. Often it is claimed that a lack of belief in a higher power is damaging. How are people supposed to do the right thing, it is asked, when they know they won’t be punished if they don’t? You may have noticed this is also an argument toward the usefulness of religion, though it usually takes a very different tone. Once again, one may disprove evolution and prove Atheists are intrinsically immoral, and yet have taken no step toward arguing for the existence of God.

There are few arguments a religious advocate can make to convince a non-believer, that do not rely on evidence or reason. And yet there are countless arguments that might as well be wrapped in evidence and drenched in logic which would just as easily be dismissed by a believer. The root of belief is not based in the natural world but in personal feeling. And as any man who has ever been in a relationship with a woman can attest, feelings are difficult to dismiss. However, I find that all cases can be made. Be it an argument based in feeling or reason, logic or evidence, a perfectly good answer can be given. One that would make anyone pause and think.

There is one argument that does not fit into any of the three categories I mentioned above. It is Pascals Wager. A pragmatic argument that will be the first to be mentioned as I begin to discuss specific claims in the next installment.

The Diary of an Unbeliever

I am an Atheist. Which is to say I do not believe in any God, or in fact the super natural. On it’s face, this is an odd declaration to make. It is a positive announcement for a negative. I am not actively believing in anything and so, logic would dictate, have no business making announcements.

Some people may assert that the act of not believing in God is as active as believing. In the case of the God of Abraham I suppose that may be true. Western society tends to saturate its children in the assumption of God. So much so that it takes a real step to stop believing. However, as much as I do not believe in the God of Abraham I also do not believe in Thor. I am as much of an Atheist to Leprechauns and Unicorns as I am to Jesus or Krishna. I believe just as little in the past dead Gods of ancient Greece or Rome as I’m sure I will in the future Gods people are bound to invent. Only in a world where God is assumed to exist would this become something to announce positively.

Strictly speaking I am agnostic - but only strictly speaking. A prerequisite of proper critical thinking is to assume you do not know everything. It is practically impossible to disprove a negative and so I make no absolute claims. On the other hand, any claim made must be backed by evidence. And claims that are extraordinary in nature must supply extraordinary evidence. As none such evidence exists for God, Unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the claim should properly be ignored until such evidence can be presented. Saying one is a Unicorn agnostic would be silly. When no evidence is supplied the odds toward the claim do not suddenly become fifty fifty. So strictly speaking I am Agnostic, but practically I am an Atheist.

This logic is not foreign to those who do believe either. A believer in the God of Abraham is as much of an Atheist as I when it comes to Thor or Zeus. There are no people who really believe in all the Gods of the world. If only because most insist they are the one true God. Richard Dawkins put it well when he said: “We are all atheists about most of the Gods that societies ever believed in. Some of us just go one God further.”

One thing I do tend to do, on the other hand, is get into arguments. Many arguments. I’ve spent quite a few hours chatting, arguing or debating people of faith and I have heard many arguments made in favor of it. I think it may be time to begin to write them all down.

Gods thin layer of infinite protection

The undoubted source of Gods all mightiness is, of course, the word 'all'. A simply 'mighty' being could be nice, but it would not be God. The word mighty does well to describe big animals or conquering kings, but in order to impress the meek one needs just a little extra. Infinite power, however, may be more Impressive but is also more complicated.

Infinity is a mathematical term. It is a rhetorical term to describe things that are unending. But despite its wide spread in conversation, Infinity does not exist in reality. There is simply no such thing as infinitely large or small. Nothing goes on forever. Think for a moment of the simple mathematical question: What is infinity minus infinity? How can one even begin to answer such a question. It is a paradox. And questions that pose paradoxes always point toward a flaw in the assumptions of the question - in this case: infinity.

But what does this do to the concept of God? Once stripped from infinity, the concept of God takes an immediate turn in our mind. Suddenly questions begin to surface. If God is not infinitely old, when did he start? Was he born? and if so, who begot him?

We find ourselves asking questions about where he came from, and the limits of his power. Without infinity God seems to be reduced to a powerful alien at best (and a figment of our imagination at worst).

What about the human soul? Even if there is an afterlife, what's the use if it is not infinite. This is great news for those going to Hell but the occupants of Heaven may feel short changed. Without infinity, the soul would not live forever. Which means we will all eventually die. Even if we accept the afterlife as a possibility - it would end eventually.

After removing this thin layer of protection from God, These questions immediately follow. Our imagination cannot grasp infinite power, but finite power we can get our head around. A God which is not infinitely moral may be just regularly moral. Maybe he isn't all around us. Maybe he can't hear all of our prayers. Maybe only some. Or maybe none.

Startup Weekend Tel Aviv Jeff Deville

Blamed on Israel 3

Just for fun, in this installment I replaced sharks and misogyny with super models and libido boosting sex gum. Let's see if the chuckles get any louder.

Israel blamed for the economic crisis.

Jews are everywhere. They control the media, the banks and the vending machines. And if Jews are in control of our snacks, the world will definitely go to hell. The definition of 'hell', in this case, would be standing in line at the bank with an old issue of Time magazine and no Snickers. Damn those Jews!

But seriously folks, if you can blame the financial crisis on Israel just because a few Jews own banks, shouldn't you also credit Israel with ending World War 2? Einstein was, after all, a penny chaser.

http://www.aztlan.net/jewish_lobby_economic_crisis.htm

Israel blamed for power outs in Egypt.

In this case they claim Egypt is selling more natural gas to Israel than it has for itself. Hence the blackouts and the blame. Isn't that a little like a drug dealer blaming his clients for not leaving him enough for self use? It would probably make more sense to blame the supplier for not making enough of the drug to begin with. In Egypt's case, the supplier is the ground. Good luck.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/egypt-blames-israel-for-power-blackouts-1.308778

Israel blamed for Palestinian wife beating.

Yeah yeah, I know I had one similar to this in our first installment, but in this case there is a scientific study involved. Well, when I say scientific I actually mean some guy rambling on paper, and when I say study I mean it's written with finger paints.

The premise of this scientific fridge decoration is that exposure to political violence will lead to intimate partner violence, also known as wife beating. Wasn't Lorena Bobbit a Palestinian woman?

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2010/01/24/lancet-study-blames-palestinian-wife-beating-on-israel/

Israel blamed for Canada’s loss of security council seat at UN.

Oh no! We lost the seat at the UN security council! Now absolutely nothing might happen!

Yup folks, no one cares. Not Iran, not Darfur and definitely not the UN. It's true you might miss out on some uncompromising talk, but don't fear. There will be plenty of inaction and indecision in the next term. And who knows, maybe next time they'll let you speak into a microphone.

http://www.honestreporting.ca/blog/permalink/2525.aspx

Israel blamed for Pepsi, Revlon, Intel, McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Sara Lee, Marks & Spencer, Nestle, Marlboro, Disney and more.

This one is going to blow your mind. Did you know Pepsi stands for: Pay Each Penni Save Israel? or that if you flip the Coca Cola logo upside down, erase it and then write something else instead, it reads: smoked salmon rocks? It's true! and I know it's true because I read it on a website.

But really, Disney? You included the company which gave the elephants in Tarzan Jewish accents but not a company called Warner Brothers? How about the Weinstein company? Its like being asked to point out a Jew at a bar mitzva and picking the waiter.

http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Conspiracy_Theories#Israeli_Sex_Gum

Israel blamed for weak Muslim nation.

The Muslim nation is so weak, Saudi Arabian teenagers need the help of camels to hump. To be honest, Israel did beat a few Muslim nations in a few wars. But that was over three decades ago. There are over fifty Muslim nations in the world, all of which vote together in the UN against Israel. And yet I still get the feeling that if we push hard enough with the security council we can give them an international wet Willey. Food for thought.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-142375978/israel-blamed-weak-muslim.html

Israel blamed for dropping libido boosting sex gum on Gaza.

Where is this sex gum and why aren't we selling the stuff. Other than in Hollywood. It makes tons of sense when you think about it. How is someone supposed to fight back when he's busy fornicating. And when sex is practically illegal, the frustration alone would be enough for the entire region to democratize. Well, it would be either democracy or large amounts of rape. And Israel would be blamed for both.

http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Conspiracy_Theories#Israeli_Sex_Gum

Every time someone blames Israel for something ridiculous, an angel cracks up laughing. This is nothing but fun to write. And there is much more to write about. Stay tuned.

Blamed on Israel 2

And here we are again with a second instalment of the ridiculous. Blaming everything on Israel may not be fair, but it is entertaining. And who doesn't like to be entertained?

Here is the second batch:

Israel blamed for harassing, non-existent modern-day Josef and Mary.

What isn't clear? If Josef and Mary were alive today, Israel would be harassing them in the West Bank. Though, when one comes to think of it, Josef and Mary were Jewish settlers in a land controlled by the Romans. And the settlers tend to be the ones harassing. Food for thought. http://www.mererhetoric.com/2005/12/26/jews-now-being-blamed-by-media-for-harassing-nonexistent-modern-day-joseph-and-mary/

Israel blamed, along with US, for world woes.

This one comes from a well known Iranian comedian by the name of Ahmadinejad. And though he may be slightly crazy and dishonest, he is still the leader of a near nuclear Islamic country and so should be treated with respect. All in all, Ahmadinejad's arguments are the same as they usually are. Israel and the United States are responsible for everything bad that has ever happened. Oh, and that there was no holocaust. At least that one's off our conscience.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/04/mil-090420-voa09.htm

Israel blamed for all US foreign policy (at least the bad parts).

The Israeli Lobby in the United States is so powerful it moves the world's only super power at its whim. Sounds nice. Let's forget for a moment that everyone who regurgitates this theory forgets the immense influence of the Saudi lobby, an influence which almost always opposes Israeli interests. Even if the Israeli lobby were really that powerful, couldn't we at least credit them with all the good things as well? Yes, the U.S. is involved with a war or two, but they are also a driving force of democracy and humanitarian aid around the world. Though I guess for some people that would be considered a bad thing as well.

http://www.counterpunch.org/massad03252006.html

Israel blamed for ice cream shortage in Ramallah hotel.

OK, this one may have a scoop of truth to it. I accept the fact that it is entirely plausible, considering Palestinian dependence on Israeli goods, that an ice cream shortage in this five star hotel in Ramallah may have been Israel's fault. But why don't we look at the bright side? Ramallah has a five star hotel. That's not the sort of thing you would expect in a region full of war crimes, oppression and starving children. In my opinion you get to complain about only one of those. You can't be both starving and upset that your big mac has too many pickles on it. and if it's the pickles you're complaining about - Israel must be doing something right. Though I think they can afford to allow them vanilla. Everyone likes vanilla.

http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/news.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1389:ramallah-opens-5-star-hotel-blames-israel-for-ice-cream-shortage&catid=3:world&Itemid=1389

Israel blamed for September 11th.

We know what really happened. It had to have been Israel. The evidence is undeniable. If the Jews didn't do it, how do you explain the fact that no bagels with smoked salmon were lost during the attacks?

http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/israel-did-911-all-the-proof-in-the-world/

Israel blamed for shark attack in Egypt.

So here's the plan, said one Mossad agent to another, we get a shark and send him to eat Egyptian tourists on the beach. They'll never guess it was us!

So yes, a shark attacked a beach in Egypt and they blamed it on Israel. When you come to think about it that isn't so far fetched. Everyone knows Israel has a secret underwater imp squad working in it's military. All they really had to do to pull it off is to fit them with tiny saddles.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/12/07/egyptian-official-believes-israel-deadly-shark-attack/

Israel blamed for demonization of Israel

If the Jews and Israel are in control of world media, and the world's media are against Israel, the Jews and Israel must be behind the whole thing!

It's true! And we would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling conspiracy theorists. If I was puppeteering everyone that hates me I would need a lot of strings.

http://spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=7150

These get more and more fun to write every day. Stay tuned for the another instalment.