Aafke’s wager versus Pascal’s wager

11 03 2012

Pascal’s wager:

For those who do not know, in the seventeenth century the mathematician Blaise Pascal formulated his infamous pragmatic argument for belief in God in his ”Pensées”. The argument runs as follows:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

How should you bet? Regardless of any evidence for or against the existence of God, Pascal argued that failure to accept God’s existence risks losing everything with no payoff on any count. The best bet, then, is to accept the existence of God. There have been several objections to the wager: that a person cannot simply will himself to believe something that is evidently false to him; that the wager would apply as much to belief in the wrong God as it would to disbelief in all gods, leaving the the believer in any particular god in the same situation as the atheist or agnostic; that God would not reward belief in him based solely on hedging one’s bets; and so on…

I find Pascal’s wager stupid and supercillious, here is a better alternative, which btw I do not take much credit for, as I formulated the basics of it when I was about 8 years old.

Aafke’s wager

If you are, due to nonexistent evidence, not convinced that there is an all loving, compassionate, all-powerful invisible skydaddy, then you should not waste your time with silly immoral religions, but you should spend your life spreading sweetness and light and trying to make the world a better place.

How should you bet? On the ”Spreading Sweetness and Light” bit. If there is an all-loving, compassionate, all-powerful, invisible sky daddy you lose nothing, but gain everything, the invisible sky daddy will not mind you never believed for he/she never put out any proof and you have been a good caring human being so you will always be in.

But if you have been doing bad things, even though they were endorsed in some holy book, a truly good and honest invisible sky daddy would take you to task for it, so you gained nothing, and lost everything, by following rules which you knew  were immoral but you liked them anyway and you justified them because some bronze age barbarian brute wrote them in some book.

So whose the clever thinker here?

Me, not Blaise!

More about what is good and what is bad in the next post.



2 responses

12 03 2012
Hasan Ismail

I love the way you think
but i disagree with you about what you said about the absence of evidence for god existance
i cant believe some one to say that:
a book was written on its own
a ship was built by it self
foot steps are there without anyone to step on that place….
So the same way i cant accept that the very large magnificent universe we are living in is created by it self
i cant accept that my very complicated human body is there without a creator
of course there must be an almighty, unique, strong, invinsible, smart creator for every thing in existance
and to know the traits of my creator i just look at his creation

12 07 2012

Evolution nicely explains the absence of god 🙂 I believe in god but i kinda see god as a wise head nodding man/woman smiling at us from above and sometimes rolling around in laughter at our stupidity and pretty much leaving all we are to evolution…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: