This Atheist's Wager

There's a concept called Pascal's Wager. The basic idea is this: it is safer to believe in God than not believing and risking the possibility of ending up in hell. It's simple, really:

• If you believe in God and if you're right, you go to heaven
• If you believe in God, nothing happens if you're wrong
• If you don't believe in God and you're right, once again nothing happens
• If you don't believe in God and you're wrong, you end up burning in hell for all of eternity

Seems logical that everyone should be a Christian, right?

Some have responded to Pascal's wager with the so-called Atheist's Wager, which can be stated in the following format: “You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.” At least, that's what the Wikipedia says, and we all know that you can't argue with the Wikipedia.

I'm also writing this post as a semi-response to a post on the blog I found through the Atheists mailing list at work. The author suggests a curious position, one of anger at the Christian God and the Atheist as a soldier for humanity. Of course, this is a bit of a contradiction of terms for me, as I just don't see us Atheists forming an army against someone's imaginary friend.

Anyhow, covering the basics of Pascal's and Atheist's Wagers, we move on to my wager: This Atheist's Wager, Or, The Scientific Atheist's Wager.

I am a scientific atheist. What does this mean? I approach the question of religion from a scientific view point. I admit that there is a possibility of God's existence. It's possible that we have souls, are judged on our actions and thoughts, and are destined to end up either in Heaven or Hell based on the aforementioned. Now, now, settle down. You, stop hooting! You haven't won. All these possibilities I admit, openly. Which is something that the opposition will never do, of course. I come forward with this because, as a scientist, I know that it isn't easy to prove that something does not exist. So, I must admit that all of this is a possibility. However, having said that, I must expand these statements: the possibilities, while non-zero, are pretty damn close to zero. Existence of God is just as likely as gravity completely disappearing at noon tomorrow. It's possible. It might happen. At this point, science has no way of saying that it can't happen. But that's a hell of a long way from saying “it will” or “there's a God”.

So, for the time being, I'm filing the question of God in the same drawer as the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause: some people believe in them, I guess I grew out of it. You will too, someday. Eh, maybe not. Well, maybe your children's children's children. Or whatever.

Consider this quote: “Atheism is a faith like not collecting stamps is a hobby.” I think that this quote is true, to the point, and may help others see religion in the same light as I see it. Religion is just a “hobby”, an activity that some people partake in. It can bring them happiness, give them purpose in life, all those things that a hobby may do. But it's not an essential part of life. A person can live their whole life without collecting stamps, or without even thinking about collecting stamps, and be perfectly happy. I do not think about God or religion during the course of my life. Sure, I can get pretty steamed up about it when reading yet another case of ignorance and injustice in the name of the Lord, but on my own, religion is not a part of my life. Equally, I can sit here and worry about gravity turning off tomorrow at noon, but what's the point? It's not something that is likely to be true.

The problem with Pascal's Wager, one of many, is the large number of assumptions that have to be made:

• There is a God
• I have a soul
• There is an afterlife
• The afterlife is binary: you either end up in Heaven or Hell
• Heaven is a good place to be, Hell is a bad place to be
• God deems where you will go based on your belief in Him

So, we have 6 assumptions and no evidence for any of them. None whatsoever. Now, lets analyze in a similar way my idea about gravity turning off:

• Gravity will turn off at noon tomorrow

Here we have 1 assumption with absolutely no evidence to suggest that it is true. From this assumption we can draw a conclusion that if gravity were indeed to turn of tomorrow, everyone not indoors would float off into interstellar space.

We can call this the Non-Floater's Wager. The Non-Floater's Wager states that it is safer to stay home tomorrow than not to:

• If you stay home and are wrong, nothing happens
• If you were right and stayed home, you get to live (a little bit longer)
• If you didn't stay home and you were right, nothing happens
• If you were wrong and went for a jog, you'll be enjoying jogging past the Moon, provided that you can hold your breath for that long
  

Clearly, you should stay home tomorrow. And believe in God. But you should stay home “more” since there's more scientific evidence for it. “More” in the sense of least-number-of-baseless-assumptions. Oh, and notice that Pascal's Wager makes assumptions that are 'biased' toward Christianity. It isn't focused towards Hinduism, that for sure. So then you have to ask yourself "Am I believing in the right God?" But, lets not try and argue that point tonight. I'm tired.

Ooh, wait, I just got an idea: come up with a crazy and impossible situation for which there is a favorable way to act and a non-favorable way to act. It's the ultimate excuse! “Sorry that I couldn't make it to the meeting, boss. Well, see, I believe that if I came into the office on time, the sun would have exploded. So, to be on the safe side, I stayed at home. Quite logical, right? I mean, you told me yourself that you believe in God 'just to be on the safe side', and this is exactly like that.”

So, after that bumpy ride through the Central Park of my strange psyche we come to the almost-irrelevant point of this blog post: This Atheist's Wager, Or, The Scientific Atheist's Wager.

“It is safer not to base one's life on illogical rules and standards. It is safer to reject the old rituals that fail the 'is this logical?' test. It is safer to not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you. It is safer to lead your life based on reason and the Golden Rule than based on old traditions and a fear/reward-based system of rules.”


Final thoughts:

• I love these bullet lists
• Check out that blog I linked to in the opening paragraphs
• Take a look at Robert A. Heinlein's “Job: A Comedy of Justice”. It's great satire and a good attack on the 'concept' of the Christian God.
• What do you suppose the chances are of me staying home tomorrow for fear of floating into interstellar space?