What should replace Pascal's wager in my opinion.

[Mystic]

On the basis of we are "softly" agnostic about the spaghetti monster, but we would never conduct ourselves in earnest as if he exists.

Well I'm a hard denier of the spaghetti monster.

[Tobie]

Oh but he "knows" god exists, so he couldn't do that.

I thought most of you were Agnostic Soft Atheists, so on what basis do you dismiss them?

I dismiss religions on individual basis. I am also inclined to believe no religions are revealed because of absence of revelation today backed up by proofs.

For example, if God wanted to guide us, he could easily descend a billion books from the sky all over the world, books that could not be destroyed or burned or changed.

He could easily do this.

The fact he doesn't go out his way to guide us, tells me he wants us to think for ourselves.

Also having thought things through, I've realized Deism shows more benevolence and care of a Creator, then sending revelations, because the former emphasizes on personal growth while the latter will make us sheep/slaves and I think God is not the dictator type of leader.

"Soft" atheists like myself dismiss religion/god on the basis that none of them have any semblance of a proof.

From what I've seen, deistic gods seem to be completely indifferent to us.

[frankiej]

On the basis of we are "softly" agnostic about the spaghetti monster, but we would never conduct ourselves in earnest as if he exists.

Well I'm a hard denier of the spaghetti monster.

[Ace Otana]

I thought most of you were Agnostic Soft Atheists.

Agnostic atheist means I don't know/cannot know for certain that god exists or not while atheist seeing as I don't believe there is a god.
I'm 9999.9% sure there is no such thing as a god.

so on what basis do you dismiss them?.

No evidence, no value, no credibility, no explanatory power what so ever. The usual.

[pocaracas]

I'm 9.9999% sure there is no such thing as a god.

That's a little less than 10%... or one tenth....

[Ace Otana]

I'm 9.9999% sure there is no such thing as a god.

That's a little less than 10%... or one tenth....

Sorry, looking at naked women, can't concentrate.
999999999999999999999999999999.9% sure there is no god!

[Cyberman]

A little late to the party but like the Red Queen said "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!" and these threads can move very fast indeed if you don't pay attention.

Anyway, here's what I wanted to say. I'm sure I've shared this before but since the topic is about Pascal's folly and what should replace it, this seems the perfect place for it to go. It's a short article which seems to be very hard to find online anymore, so it's lucky I kept a copy (only ever so slightly adapted to my personality and style) for my own files. It's an evaluation of the wager and its many problems but also suggests an alternative and much more reasonable version. I appreciate it looks a little daunting but please do give it five minutes:

Pascal’s Wager

Pascal’s Wager is well known to many atheists. On the internet, it is probably the single most common argument heard from Christians, and the regulars of newsgroups such as alt.atheism feel cheated if a week goes by without someone bringing it up (this rarely happens), only to be shot down in flames (this always happens). This article was written specifically to deal with it.

Pascal’s Wager is quite simple and appears, superficially, to be a strong and compelling argument for theism. However, a little close scrutiny soon reveals the flawed logic and reasoning behind it, which actually makes it one of the weakest arguments a theist could come up with.

The Wager

Pascal’s Wager can be presented in many different forms, usually something like this:

“If you believe, and God exists, you gain everything. If you disbelieve, and God exists, you lose everything.”

Alternatively:

“It makes more sense to believe in God than to not believe. If you believe, and God exists, you will be rewarded in the afterlife. If you do not believe, and He exists, you will be punished for your disbelief. If He does not exist, you have lost nothing either way.”

It amounts to hedging your bets. The consequences upon your death are shown here:

I believe: God exists - Go To Heaven; God does not exist - Nothing
I do not believe: God exists - Burn In Hell; God does not exist - Nothing

The worst case for the theist is no afterlife, the worst case for the atheist is an eternity in Hell. You can see why this appears to be a potentially convincing argument - it is sensible to choose the least-worst case.

The flaws

The most obvious problems with Pascal’s Wager are:

• How do you know which god to believe in? There are plenty to choose from, and if you pick the wrong one, you could be in big trouble (e.g. what if you choose Jesus, but get to heaven only to come face-to-trunk with Ganesh?). This is known as the ‘Avoiding the wrong Hell problem.’ If a dozen people of different religions came to you with Pascal’s Wager, how could you possibly choose between them? After all, many religions are quite specific that they are the One True Religion, and not any others. Jesus Christ is supposed to have said, “I am the way, the truth and the light. None shall come to the Father except through me.” [emphasis added] and no doubt most other religions make similar claims. If a Christian considers the Wager as strong support for his faith, surely he must accept that it is equally valid for all other religions when presented to himself?

• God is surely not stupid. Won’t it know that you’re just trying to get a free ride into Heaven? How can you sincerely believe in a god simply out of convenience?

• If there is no God, you have still lost something. You have wasted a good portion of your life performing the various devotional rituals, attending Churches, praying, reading scripture and discussing your deity with His other followers. Not to mention giving your hard-earned money to the church, wasting your intelligence on theological endeavours and boring the hell out of people who really don’t want to hear your Good News.

• Can you get away with just sort of generally believing in a Supreme Being, without specifically believing in one particular Deity? Probably not - God will still know what you’re up to. Also, many gods are quite particular about how they should be worshipped. Many born-again Christians will tell you that the only way to Heaven is through accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour - nothing more and nothing less. General-Deity-Belief and being nice simply won’t do. Many people believe that all the different religions are merely alternative routes to the same destination. Nice and tolerant (if a little warm ‘n’ fuzzy) though this may be, there is no valid reason to accept this stance over the fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist position: if the fundies are right, then the un-Saved liberal theists are in just as much trouble as the nonbelievers.

• Few, if any, atheists disbelieve in deities out of choice. It’s not as if we know the god is really there, but somehow refuse to believe in it (for example, see if you can choose to truly believe that Australia does not exist). Most atheists disbelieve simply because they know of no compelling evidence to suggest that any sort of god exists. If you want an atheist to believe, show her some good evidence, don’t just say it’s in her best interests to believe even if there is no god. A person cannot choose to sincerely believe in something, just because it is pragmatic to do so. Sure, you could say all the right prayers and attend church regularly, but that is not the same thing as actually believing, and any god worth its salt would obviously see straight through that.

• It is quite insulting. It amounts to a thinly veiled threat, little better than saying “Believe in my God or He’ll send you to Hell” (in fact, this is often the form in which it is presented). Also, the theist making this threat assumes that the atheist believes there is a Hell or a god to send him there in the first place. If you don’t believe in Hell anyway, it’s not a scary thing to be threatened with - a bit like saying “If you don’t start believing in unicorns, one will trample you to death while you’re sleeping.” Who would be worried by that?

• It is often self-refuting, depending on the person’s description of God. If you believe that God will forgive anyone for anything, or judge people purely on how they lived their life and not what they believed, or that everyone gets to Heaven regardless (unless maybe they were genocidal cannibal serial killers), then the Wager is meaningless. You might as well say “Believe in God, or you’ll... erm... go to Heaven anyway.” In such a case, it doesn’t make a scrap of difference whether the person believes or not.

Pascal’s Wager is hopelessly flawed. It sounds good at first, but poke it with the spike of reason and it quickly deflates, letting out all the hot air.

An alternative - The Atheist’s Wager

This seems to be much more reasonable, both for atheists and for theists:

“It is better to live your life as if there are no gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. 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, it will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in it.”

(And if the god is not benevolent, it’s gonna git ya whatever you do!)

This can be shown as:

I believe: God exists - Go To Heaven because you believed; God does not exist - Wasted life praying etc.
I do not believe: God exists - Go To Heaven because you’re a good person; God does not exist - Made the world a better place

Has anyone got the number for Pascal’s Pager?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

They teach you shouldn't be basing your life on what you don't know but trying to attain knowledge and follow what you know.

That is the precise opposite of what religions teach. Religions are faith based,which means based on authority and dogma,rather than reason or proof. Many Christians for example actually claim[ from the pulpit] that reason is the enemy of faith.

Sorry Mystic,I think you speak New Age wankery,as is your wont.

PS a skeptic, I have no personal truths and seek none. I demand that all questions remain open,especially one's strongest beliefs.

[Cyberman]

They teach you shouldn't be basing your life on what you don't know but trying to attain knowledge and follow what you know.

That is the precise opposite of what religions teach. Religions are faith based,which means based on authority and dogma,rather than reason or proof. Many Christians for example actually claim[ from the pulpit] that reason is the enemy of faith.

It can't be a coincidence that the only unforgivable sin is disbelief. You can rape, murder, covet oxen and all the rest as much as you like and then beg forgiveness, after all there is more joy in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth and all that swaddling - but have the audacity not to believe and there's no hope for you.

[genkaus]

A problem with Pascal's wager, is in the very title. You are wagering. Really you shouldn't wager at all. You should rather try to seek knowledge.

And this I feel all religions teach. They teach you shouldn't be basing your life on what you don't know but trying to attain knowledge and follow what you know.

There is a verse in Quran that says "And do not follow what you have no knowledge of" and says "Do you say about God what you don't know?".

As far as the fear aspect of religion goes, it should be reformed into, there is a consequence for disbelieving in the religion, therefore, you better make sure the religion is wrong if you are not going to follow it.

And I think this is a fair request from those whom believe in those type of religions. The reason is because they feel there is a huge consequence for disbelieving in the religion. They believe the consequence for disbelieving in the religion is to be tortured and tormented forever. Moreover, they believe it's "evil" and "greatly wrong" to disbelieve in the religion.

Now of course, none of this is reason for people to believe in the religion, but it's a logical and reasonable reason to take it seriously if and only if one doesn't know it's wrong.

Putting aside the fact that we have enough evidence to know that the known religions are wrong, we are not required to take it seriously even if we don't know that its wrong.

For example, I do not know that the corn on my foot is not a rare type of viral infection which would spread overnight leaving no choice but to amputate my leg and a fat embolism from the resulting surgery would lead to a brain aneurysm. However, my absence of knowledge on this point is not a "logical and reasonable reason" for me to run to the doctor everytime something changes in my body.