Pascal’s Wager 2.0
Discussions of the wager usually follow Pascal and lump these two together in the single option of not believing in God. They don’t distinguish denying from doubting because both are ways of not believing. The argument then is about whether believing is a better option than not believing. My formulation of the argument will focus instead on the choice between denying and doubting God.
Denial of God means that I simply close the door on the hope that there is something beyond the natural world; doubt may keep that door open. I say “may” because doubt can express indifference to what is doubted. I don’t know and I don’t care whether there is an even number of stars or whether there are planets made of purple rock. Indifferent doubt is the practical equivalent of denial, since both refuse to take a given belief as a viable possibility — neither sees it as what William James called a “live option.” But doubt may also be open to and even desirous of what it doubts. I may doubt that I will ever understand and appreciate Pierre Boulez’s music, but still hope that I someday will.
I propose to reformulate Pascal’s wager as urging those who doubt God’s existence to embrace a doubt of desire rather than a doubt of indifference.
.. Religion is generally little more than male authoritarianism, misogyny and medievalism forced to constantly evolve toward rationality and reality.
Religion at its core is the world’s most popular psychological disorder caused by intergenerational intellectual child abuse.
If there were a ‘God’ and one led the most ethical, charitable, decent and compassionate life and yet didn’t believe in ‘God’, would ‘God’ punish you because you never put God’s name up in lights or failed to bow your head in religious worship ?
.. There are thus two types of people in the world: those who allow their judgment to be corrupted by accepting the bribe and believing in God, and those who are honest enough to reject the bribe and not believe in God. This has a current application. In the United States, there are numerous tax advantages showered upon religious organizations (special treatment of clergy under the Social Security system, charitable deductions, non taxation of church real estate, etc.). In Europe, it is often more advantageous in tax terms to be an atheist (you don’t have to pay the German church tax, Kirchensteuer). Unsurprisingly there are numerous believers in the United States, and numerous atheists in Europe.
.. Whenever the topic of religion comes up even tangentially in a NY Times column, it triggers multiple comments from people expressing their anger over the silliness of indulging in something that they see as superstition and irrefutably unreal. This is the denial that the author is talking about.