Pascal's Wager

Recently, an anonymous posted made the following comment on my post of a few years ago entitled "God's Omniscience, Omnipresence, and Omnipotence", and I thought I would put my response here as well as it hits on an argument for god that is often used.

Have you ever considered Christian versus Atheist’s views from a costs-to-benefits perspective?  

As a Christian, I sacrifice my time reading, praying, attending services, contributing to the church, and so forth. In exchange, I believe I will receive an eternal reward. If I am wrong, I have sacrificed some time, and a few people may find I am not as logical, cerebral, or erudite as I could be. However, even if I am incorrect, there are a number of studies showing the positive impacts of prayer, meditation, and social support. These aspects of my spiritual beliefs increase longevity, decrease oxidative stress, and have a number of positive health benefits; thus, I still have tangible reasons to engage in these behaviors beyond my personal spiritual experience and beliefs.  

In contrast, you appear to spend a fair amount of time countering Christian beliefs so you still invest time as I do, and there are probably a number of people who applaud the soundness of your logic, which would be a benefit. However, if you are wrong, you have traded a few decades of feeling intellectually superior for an eternity in hell. 

I know you would say, “How can a loving God send an individual to such a place?” He does not send anyone. Individuals are provided with the opportunity to decide, and yes, God can know their choice without influencing it – imagine an Entity so great knowing the placement and trajectory of every particle and molecule in the universe simultaneously is possible. Anyway, the consequence of sin is sad, and I am sure that no one regrets the choices so many people make more than God. Still, the downfall of Satan’s influence in this world combined with people getting to pick their actions is that there is evil and, subsequently, consequences. 

In returning to the main point, is it logical to risk such a significant consequence for a temporary benefit? 

My response followed:

First of all, thanks for the comment, you bring up some interesting points and provide a refreshing opposing view that this blog doesn't often see. I will do my best to address all of your points.

Your argument that the potential benefits of being a Christian vs. an atheist is commonly known as Pascal's Wager, and it is a demonstrated logical fallacy (hopefully I will be able to demonstrate this to you). Basically, it would be accurate if you were dealing with a true dichotomy (heads or tails on a coin, for example). If someone offered to flip a coin, and promised me $1 million dollars if I guessed heads and I was correct, or $1 dollar if I guessed tails and I was correct, the principal you are trying to apply would work here. Obviously, I should go with heads, because the potential gain is much greater than the alternative. However, when applying this principle to religion, one simply has to ask "which god?" in order to invalidate it. If Pascal's Wager were valid, I could equally turn it on you, asserting that if the god of Islam is the true god, you've traded your life praying to the wrong god and giving to the wrong church, and will therefore suffer an eternity in hell as I would in your original argument. I hope my example helps clear this up rather than confuses you!

There is a second aspect to this that flips it upside down. While you obviously find your activity and support for the church as nothing but a positive, I am of the position that religious belief does demonstrable harm, to both the individual and others. Not knowing anything about particular beliefs other than that you label yourself a Christian, there is a good chance that you personally believe homosexuality is a sin, or there are those in your church that do. In this case, if your beliefs are wrong (applying Pascal's Wager here) then you've contributed to the discrimination and oppression of an entire group of people on completely false grounds. If, by chance, this particular example doesn't apply to you, I'm sure there is at least one demonstrably harmful effect of your religious belief if you were willing to share more specifics.

As a side note to this discussion, Pascal's Wager implies an element of choice in belief, an idea I am not able to comprehend. I could not choose to belief in magical unicorns on the moon. My beliefs are constructed by my brain based on information, knowledge, and experiences I have acquired. There is no special switch where I can suddenly start or stop believing something. Even if you offered me $1 billion dollars to do so, I could not stop believing that I exist, for example. 

I have no doubt to your claims that that activities such as meditation and socializing have numerous positive, tangible health benefits. Yet I see no reason why these things are exclusive to Christianity, or religious believers in general. 

"In contrast, you appear to spend a fair amount of time countering Christian beliefs so you still invest time as I do, and there are probably a number of people who applaud the soundness of your logic, which would be a benefit. However, if you are wrong, you have traded a few decades of feeling intellectually superior for an eternity in hell."

True, I do spend some time applying skepticism to religious and other supernatural claims (although this take up probably less than 1% of my time) but I'm confused as to why you seem to think the only benefit to this is the applause of others for my logic. I would assume you personally don't find my logic sound (as if logic was something which was subject to interpretation) yet you seem to acknowledge it here. Either way, you then go on to make the mistake of falling into the trap of Pascal's Wager. Additionally, your less than subtle remark on my "feeling intellectually superior" is an unfair categorization. I don't claim to be any smarter than you or anyone else. I don't have a genius-level IQ or a PhD. The benefit to my life as a skeptic and rational thinker is a worldview supported and justified by evidence, and free of unjustified assertions. I'd like to think that this in turn makes the world a better place, taking a small bite out of unjust and unfounded beliefs that cause real damage.

You are correct to predict my reply with the problem of evil. I find it interesting for you to grant that human beings have choices and free will, as this would seem to imply that god cannot be omnipotent. 

"imagine an Entity so great knowing the placement and trajectory of every particle and molecule in the universe simultaneously is possible"

Sure, I can imagine this. However, I see no reason to play mind games. I'm not interested in what is possible, I'm concerned with the truth, as demonstrated through an objective, rational, and scientific understanding of reality.

"Anyway, the consequence of sin is sad, and I am sure that no one regrets the choices so many people make more than God."

What an incredibly condescending and deplorable idea. He created the system, made the rules, and put people in it, yet if he is so regretful he is either powerless to change it, or he doesn't care enough to do so. So much for being omnipotent and omnibenevolent.

Hopefully I haven't come across too critical, I am simply trying to explain the fallacy of Pascal's Wager and address some of your other points. I sincerely hope you take some time to consider my response, and I welcome a reply from you as well. One additional route I would be interested in going down would be for you to elaborate why you believe in things like god and Satan in the first place? You make numerous claims describing specific characteristics to these characters, yet I see no reason to believe either exists in the first place. If it's too personal, I would understand, but please don't be offended when I criticize those with beliefs like yours, which influence major aspects of your lives and therefore the lives of others, yet which are closed to examination and immune to question.



Thoughts? Reactions?

Teaching and Atheism

Firstly, I'd like to wish all my American readers a happy and healthy Thanksgiving. My wife and I hosted at our new house for the first time, and everything was great. I do hope people will take the time to consider what they are thankful for, although all one needs to do is turn on the TV and see swarms of people fighting over the newest product at Black Friday sales to be cynical.

Secondly, I must always be apologetic for the lack of posts, as I'm quite busy with teaching, but I am very thankful to have a steady job, especially one that I truly enjoy and is (hopefully) making a positive impact on the world. There is a conversation to be had, however, about how one goes about being a teacher and an atheist. Because I teach social studies and history, nearly every day we are discussing some topic that could be relevant to religion or the lack thereof. I will share a few experiences I've had so far with you below: (I teach at a high school in New England)

When discussing the Vietnam War, we watched a documentary that contained interviews with former POWs who described, in detail, the incredible torture they underwent, sometimes for seven or eight years. I then posed the question to the class: "what do you think you would do in that situation, as a POW?". A few students said they would try to escape, while others would just accept it because they were powerless. Then one boy suggested that he would possibly kill himself, because the physical torture would be so horrible. A few other students nodded knowingly, but one girl raised her hand and said "but killing yourself is a sin". At this point I had to interject and add that, for some people, suicide is seen as immoral and wrong, but not for everyone. Some other students seemed to understand my point, but the girl was noticeably upset, because, from her belief system, suicide is always wrong. How should I have handled this?

During our unit on Civil Rights, we discussed the role that churches often played. Especially in the South, many black churches were instrumental in organizing and carrying out protests, boycotts, and marches, all of which helped the Civil Rights movement progress. However, I also tell my students about the KKK, and how they were an explicitly Protestant organization. We watched a short film about the forced desegregation at Little Rock Central High School, in Little Rock Arkansas, and an old newsreel clip shows an interview with a white protester, who says something along the lines of "We've always been separate, that's the way it's supposed to be. It's Biblical...". Again, many of my students were disturbed by this, and I think my handling of these topics is quite important, but I'm not always sure how to do it.

My kids, especially freshmen, often bring up things like Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster or conspiracy theories, such as 9/11, etc. As a skeptic, I inform them that I don't think these have any merit and there is no legitimate, verified evidence of the claims, yet they seem to think I'm being closed minded. I want my students to learn to be excellent critical thinkers, but how do I lead them there without just presenting them my position on a topic?

My purpose in sharing these vignettes is simply to start a conversation about how atheism can and/or should affect our daily lives. As a teacher, I have a responsibility to provide, to the best of my ability, a factual education to all my students. But of course, at the same time, I don't want to stand on my soap box and tell students what to think, as this is no better than religious indoctrination. When they asked me who I voted for, I told them that I voted for President Obama, but I added that I would never want them to think something simply because I do. Especially during the election, we would spend a few minutes at the beginning of class discussing politics, and most of my students seemed to lean left, but there were a few strongly right-winged kids. I want to encourage a fair discussion of the issues, and I do my best to simply ask probing questions rather than directly address their claims, but this isn't always easy. Most importantly of all, I want my students to know how to think.

I'm curious to hear from others, especially teachers or those who had a role in shaping the minds of others, how they deal with their atheism.

Note: Don't forget to follow me on Twitter @SecularThinker. Stay updated with the blog as well as various other stories/news items/things of note I will share.

Lawmaker who thinks homosexuality is a threat to children, crashes boat into children

By now this story is a few weeks old, so I apologize to those who have already seen/heard it. You can find a local report of the incident here. Donald Dwyer, a Tea Party Republican down in Maryland, has for years railed against marriage equality as a violation of "God's law" and a danger to school children across the country. On Friday, August 24th, Dwyer was driving his boat down the Magothy river with a friend when he crashed into another boat carrying a few adults and five children. Six people had to be taken to the hospital, including four children. Police reports indicate that Dwyer's blood alcohol level was at 0.2%, more than twice the legal limit.

Thankfully, no serious injuries were sustained and all children have been released at this point. The driver of the other boat reported that as soon as he saw Dwyer's boat coming towards him, he knew the operator must be drunk. The following excerpt from the Baltimore Sun is especially telling:

Police have released 911 tapes from witnesses, who said Dwyer's speedboat -- called The Legislator -- was at "full throttle" just prior to the collision.

I'm actually not sure which is worse: operating your boat drunk and ramming full speed into another boat full of children, or naming your boat "The Legislator"? The more I read about this Dwyer guy, the more I've come to absolutely despise him. Dan Rodricks, a reporter for the Baltimore Sun, had this to say about Dwyer:

He expressed grave concern that, if granted equal status in society, gay men and women would soon be inflicting their "lifestyle choices" on the nation's children. For one thing, they would demand that homosexuality be taught in public schools — as part of biology or sociology classes, I guess — and Dwyer made it sound like some sort of indoctrination process, or gay recruitment. The man was pretty serious about that.

 Here we go again; the good old "lifestyle choice" argument. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Dwyer: Are you also against skateboarding? What about listening to country music (although the case could be made that we all should be)? Those are lifestyle choices. Living in a city as opposed to the countryside, that's a lifestyle choice. Growing up and simply existing as your biological forces compel you to? Not a lifestyle, nor a choice. And then he's worried about homosexuality be taught in school. As if that is a meaningful statement. The Holocaust is taught in school, do we worry that will induce students to attempt genocides of their own? If you are really worried about making sure our students are getting a quality education, why don't you propose a better substance abuse program, so kids don't grow up to become assholes like you who drunk-drive their boat and injure children.

GOP Leader: Rape Victims are "Blessed"

And just when you thought things couldn't get any worse, they did. Sharon Barnes, a state GOP leader in
Missouri (there must be something in the water there) came out in defense of her conservative colleague Todd Akin's statements today, admitting that he "phrased it badly" but still clinging to the belief that "abortion is never an option".


As if defending one of the most ignorant, abhorrent comments in recent memory isn't enough, Barnes goes on to say "If God has chosen to bless this person [a rape victim] with a life, you don’t kill it." How dare you, Mrs. Barnes, even spend one nanosecond on the absolutely evil thought that a victim of rape, one of the worst possible crimes, who becomes pregnant should feel blessed, as if it were an honor.


Argh, this is so frustrating that this kind of discussion still goes on in the 21st century. Hell, I'd be baffled if I heard this kind of talk in the 1st century. How badly have we failed society by allowing these people to become elected leaders, making decisions that affect millions of people?

                                                (Photo Credit: http://www.rawstory.com)

Most Religious and Least Religious Countries. And Todd Akin...

An article in Slate last week unveiled the results of a recent poll, and it's looking good! In the United States, self identified atheists have shown a five-fold increase since 2005 alone. This is a trend that is seen across the globe, with a total 13% of respondents worldwide labelling themselves as "convinced atheists". It should come as no surprise that the highest concentration of atheists were from Asia, namely China, Japan, and south Korea. These societies have been secular (at least by Western standards) for quite some time. Another influencing factor is the nature of Eastern religions, which often lack a supernatural deity; so, while they may be "atheists" in the purest sense of the word, they are not necessarily proper skeptics. I think this shows as we read almost daily of reports of rapidly rising demand for animal parts, such as rhinoceros horns, believed to act as magical cures for a myriad of ailments. So while, overall, I would suggest that increased atheism is a good thing, we still have a long way to go.

On of the flip side of the poll, we also get a look at the most religious societies. Not surprisingly, a significant majority of the top 10 "most religious" countries are underdeveloped and riddled with social strife. Not that I'm saying religious belief causes this (although there is good reason to believe this is/can be the case) but another factor here is that difficult situations attract religious believers as well as religious promoters. Think about it for a second: Christian churches across the United States don't sent thousands of missionaries to Scandinavia  which has a very secular government and society (and also, coincidentally, one of the highest standards of living in the entire world). Instead, they send them into war-torn Africa, or poor, rural Southeast  Asia. They target those whose living conditions are as miserable as possible, knowing that they can sell their message of hope and salvation. It is a simple economic equation: Where there is demand, their will be salesmen knocking at the door to sell the product.

A few other noteworthy results of the study, quoted directly:

"RELIGIOSITY IS HIGHER AMONG THE POOR: People in bottom income 

groups are 17% more religious than those in top income groups"

No real surprise here. Going back to the quality of life argument: those whose quality of life is lower therefore seek more hope and inspiration, and religion is a common source of both.

"RELIGIOSITY  IS  LOWER AMONG COLLEGE EDUCATED: College 

educated are 16% less religious than those without secondary 

education."

Also unsurprising. The more one learns about the world, the less mysterious it becomes. The less likely one is to accept oversimplified "god did it" type answers. This could also relate to the previous point, in that those with higher income are more likely to have access to higher education, so I think the two go hand in hand.

"TRENDS SINCE 2005: Religiosity drops by 9%, while atheism rises by 

3%."

Women-only cities?

Saudi Arabia, known most notably for its very recent (September, 2011) announcement that women will be able to vote in the 2015 election, and its ban on women drivers,  made further headlines recently when plans were released for a women-only city. This comes from The Week, which says

Saudi Arabia has a problem: The Persian Gulf kingdom has an increasingly educated, increasingly unemployed female population and ultraconservative laws and customs that forbid women from mingling, much less working, with men. The Saudis are fashioning an unusual solution: building an industrial city that will allow only women. 

The first "city" will be more of an industrial section of the city of Hofuf, where a few textile, pharmaceuticals, and food-processing factories will be run entirely by women who will live in nearby apartment buildings. If all goes as planned, this model will be replicated in the capital city of Riyadh. Seems like a great fix to their "problem" right?

To answer that, let's look at the way the "problem" was phrased again. Saudi Arabia clearly has two conflicting issues. First, more women are able to access education and improve their economic utility. OK, great! No problem here, what could possibly conflict with that? Oh yeah, those "ultraconservative laws and customs" that are put in place to subjugate women to the control of men. Now, if I (or almost anyone else, I think) were to be faced with a similar "problem" with generic labels, the solution would be quite clear: Here's a good thing that's happening that involves the expansion of education and rights, yet we aren't fully able to take advantage of it because of outdated social and moral traditions and structures. Well then, just change those backwards, traditional rules in order to make progress, problem solved.

Of course, it's not this simple when those traditional rules are believed to be divine and absolute. Because now we can't change the rules, we just need to bend over backwards to create unnecessary workarounds to avoid offending tradition, while only marginally improving the situation for those in question. And this is perhaps one the biggest problems with religion itself: the perceived infallibility and absolute nature of it's beliefs. One of my best friends is fond of saying that religion does nothing harmful, but that people do harm in the name of religion. I disagree, and this is a perfect example of why: religious beliefs, by their very nature of being religious (e.g. being considered holy, divine, supernatural, absolute, perfect, etc.) These aren't just your standard case of dumb ideas. These are dumb ideas that are exempt from criticism, question, or investigation, and those are some of the biggest dangers to society.

Kansas Doctor Under Attack For Not Forcing Ten Year Old Rape Victim To Give Birth

Well folks, the title pretty much says it all. You can read the full article here, but basically what happened is that a mentally disabled 10 year old girl was raped by her uncle, and her doctor is now under fire by pro-life groups for not forcing the girl to carry the child to term. A group by the name of Operation Rescue (whose blog Scott Roeder, who murdered abortion doctor George Tiller in 20009, posted to multiple times) has come out against this doctor:

"Operation Rescue filed a negligence complaint against [doctor] Neuhaus alleging that her exams were not thorough enough to support her medical conclusions and her follow-up care was inadequate because she did not recommend counseling or hospitalization after each procedure."


So this radical pro-life group is upset that a 10 year old rape victim does not have to raise her unwanted child (as if this it were even theoretically possible), and the best argument they can come up with is that the little girl's doctor is incompetent. I'm sorry, but just because your Bronze Age moral system is so ass-backwards that you would rather force a mentally handicapped 10 year old rape victim to give birth than to allow the pregnancy to be terminated does not mean anyone will take you seriously. You can cry negligence all you want, but you only making the pro-life movement look even worse. If there was ever a clear cut example that abortion was the absolute best solution, I would think this would be that case. Just yet another example of how religious thinking can be so dangerous to society.