Self-proclaimed agnostic Scott Adams, creator of the comic strip Dilbert, discusses interesting issues on his personal blog. In the past, he has taken on atheism, as well as critics of Intelligent Design, and he does it again with a pair of posts entitled The Atheist Who Thought He Was God and Pascal’s Wager. Here are some thought-provoking (and atheist-provoking) quotes.
Perhaps you will argue that being 99.999999% certain God doesn’t
exist is just as good as being 100% sure. That strikes me as bad math.
As other philosotainers have famously noted, a small chance of spending
eternity in Hell has to be taken seriously. Eternity is a long time.Let me put this in perspective. You might be willing to accept a 10%
risk of going skiing and getting hurt, but you wouldn’t accept a 10%
risk of a nuclear war. The larger the potential problem, the less risk
you are willing to tolerate.An eternity in Hell is the largest penalty there could ever be. So
while you might not worry about a .00000000001% chance of ending up in
Hell, you can’t deny the math. .00000000001% of eternity is a lot
longer than your entire mortal life.ooooo
I realize it’s unscientific to try and compare one absurdity to
another. But if you assume our perceptions are often flawed, you have
to allow the possibility that some apparent absurdities are due to our
limited powers of perception. So, for example, while the notion of a
loving God who allows eternal damnation seems absurd, it is less absurd
than assuming the world is run by invisible unicorns, or that God
discriminates against those who believe in him.The God theory has built into it the assumption we are not bright
enough to understand the mind of an omnipotent being. That sounds
reasonable. Hey, if God exists, and he does things different that I
would, just maybe the problem is on my end. If you believe in God, the
apparent absurdities have a reasonable explanation, even if wrong.ooooo
Picking the "right" religion is a long shot no matter how hard you try.
But if rational thought has any value at all, it’s in narrowing down
options and improving our odds of making good choices. Rational thought
hasn’t led anyone to conclude that there’s a God who only saves people
who don’t believe he exists. We can’t rule it out, but can’t we rate
its likelihood compared to a God who prefers that his lumps of clay
hold him in higher esteem than their own eye crud?
Or the Flying Spaghetti monster? This is one of the many points where atheist criticisms of faith break down – they refuse to use logic or reason to discriminate between religious claims, because to them, they are all equally illogical because they are all equally non-verifiable. This is a serious intellectual error.
ooooo
I’d prefer to make all of my decisions on the basis of peer reviewed
science. But I don’t have that option when considering the great
beyond. So I settle for looking at the competing absurdities and
picking the one that seems relatively least absurd.
Of course, committed atheist materialists don’t even consider such "absurdities" – but their problem is that others do, and they don’t like it. At least, not in public life and public policy. So in order to keep it out of public life and policy, they try to contain it to the personal sphere. But in effect, they are limiting us to their narrow materialist world view, and are disallowing other valid epistemological methods, and other valid means of moral reasoning.
I see, so there's a very remote possibility that this "loving father" god may exist and is intent on torturing me for all eternity if I can't force myself to believe in him, then I should just throw all moral sense and intellectual integrity to the winds and force myself to believe? This is stupid beyond belief. The same argument could be made for believing in Allah or Shiva or the FSM, or any cult that comes along (why not Scientology or Mormonism?). We have to base our beliefs on something besides threats and intimidation, and I choose my own innate moral sense and intellectual honesty. I am suspicious of all organized religions and their claims. If there is a monotheistic god, I think he would appreciate such a stance far more than the mindless conformity and cruelty inherent in religion.
Hi Skeptic:
1. Pascal's actual Wager didn't mention hell; it spoke of the infinite loss of betting wrong wrt Christianity if Christianity is true. The loss could easily be the "opportunity cost" of missing out on the infinite benefit of heaven.
2. Pascal also didn't suggest forcing yourself to believe in something. He argued on prudential grounds that when you are in a situation where evidence cannot determine whether you should be a Christian or an atheist you should go through the motions of belief, with the idea that eventually you would come to believe. He doesn't say why you would eventually believe; his argument is quite consistent with the reason being that you come to actually see the truth.
3. The Dilbert article actually addresses the issues you raised. He recognizes that Pascal's argument could be applied to non-Christian religions, so the argument doesn't give a reason to prefer Christianity to those other religions. But Dilbert (I am not a fan of Dilbert so I am not interested in actually learning the name of the guy who writes it:-) argues that given the choice of one of those religions that promises infinite gain and atheism which does not, the right bet is to apply Pascal's strategy to some religion as opposed to remaining an atheist. Dilbert gives a reason to pick Islam as the best of all the good bets BTW.
4. Dilbert also mentions the argument that possibly the right bet is to bet on "God would prefer skeptics". He rejects that argument because that's a debating tactic instead of a serious alternative. Why would God prefer skeptics? He surely would prefer honesty to dishonesty, but the Pascal strategy doesn't ask for dishonesty (see (2) above). "God prefers skeptics' seems silly to Dilbert (and to me as well BTW).
your friend
Keith
I see, so there's a very remote possibility that this "loving father" god may exist and is intent on torturing me for all eternity if I can't force myself to believe in him, then I should just throw all moral sense and intellectual integrity to the winds and force myself to believe?
Well, such extreme, hyperbolic, either/or thinking is not really mature, or a sound way to make decisions.
No one is asking you to force yourself to believe – that is an impossibility. But not allowing yourself to honestly evaluate the situation beyond your initial reaction to the presentation is just as poor a decision.
No one is asking you to lose your intellectual integrity. But I am suggesting that your assumptions and conclusions may not be sound. If you have a visceral emotional attachment to your ideas, and use that as a reason to reject any logical arguments to the contrary, that's not intellectual integrity, that's rejecting other possible explanations for emotional reasons while convincing one's self that the reasons are entirely logical and intellectual.
Also, he is not saying that you must believe for this reason. He is saying that, from a purely logical and statistical point of view, it makes sense to CONSIDER the reality of an option more seriously if the consequences of being wrong are great. Considering is not believing, but failure to seriously consider something while hiding behind superficial or even what we believe are significant objections is, statistically speaking, unwise, if not stupid. His examples make this clear.
No one can force belief, but we can prevent it by not allowing ourselves to honestly consider the claims of faith.
We have to base our beliefs on something besides threats and intimidation, and I choose my own innate moral sense and intellectual honesty.
I totally agree, but again, if someone states a "threatening" fact, we ought to consider it's possibility, esp. if there are OTHER reasons to believe in their integrity. Personally, I don't find Mohammed's life or teachings or lifestyle full of integrity. Jesus', I do.
And again, it we are failing to honestly intellectually consider something for emotional reasons, we may convince ourselves that we have intellectual reasons for rejecting faith claims, but in reality, we are only shortchanging ourselves if we fail to recognize the truth because of our knee-jerk reactions.
I am suspicious of all organized religions and their claims.
As you should be. But organized religion is not all bad, as I discussed eloquently ;) in my upcoming podcast "Character before gifts" – I'll get it up this week, maybe tonight.
And we should evaluate truth on it's own terms, not based on appeals to authority or threats. But we should also be careful not to reject sources of potential truth just because we perceive them as appealing to authority or threats when they may not be, which is what I feel that you may be doing.
Your problem, seeker, is that you can't or won't concede intellectual integrity and honesty to your opponents. For instance, you accuse me of an immature and emotional knee-jerk reaction when you have no evidence to back this up. How do you know I haven't carefully considered the matter over a long period? Do you really know anything about me at all (like that I was a practicing Christian for years, studied it carefully, and finally found it unconvincing in its claims and positively harmful in its effects)? You get all hot under the collar with what you consider ad hominem attacks, yet you are perfectly comfortable doing the same thing to me! From your answer above I see no reason to change my mind about your religion. You just assert its "truth" without offering any evidence, and condemn and insult me for not seeing that "truth" and bowing to it. Not very convincing.
Your problem, seeker, is that you can't or won't concede intellectual integrity and honesty to your opponents. For instance, you accuse me of an immature and emotional knee-jerk reaction when you have no evidence to back this up.
I am saying that your choice of language seems to indicate this. Also, I am *suggesting* based on your hyperbolic language that you may be convincing yourself of intellectual integrity, but you may be lacking in intellectual honesty or rigor based on a prior emotional commitment to a specific outcome.
I am not concluding such, only suggesting based on the evidence of your strong language. Whether or not that is true is up to you to decide.
You may actually feel that you have been intellectually rigorous and honest. And you may be right. You may also still be in error, but so may I, even if I feel I have done my best.
How do you know I haven't carefully considered the matter over a long period? Do you really know anything about me at all (like that I was a practicing Christian for years, studied it carefully, and finally found it unconvincing in its claims and positively harmful in its effects)?
Again, I was surmising based on your language. I may have guessed wrong. If you look at my language, while I may be gently accusing, I am not declaring that position as true. For example, in my closing above, I said "But we should also be careful not to reject sources of potential truth just because we perceive them as appealing to authority or threats when they may not be, which is what I feel that you may be doing."
Note the use of "we" and "I feel" – those are inclusive, and subjective/tentative statements. You should read them as such instead of believing the worst.
You get all hot under the collar with what you consider ad hominem attacks, yet you are perfectly comfortable doing the same thing to me!
I don't think I made any ad hominem attacks. Only explanations of my view of what proof consists of, and what I perceive your position to be – you are free to correct me, but I don't think that I used those like ad hominems – that is, I did not say you are wrong because of bad motives – I only said that if you reject my conclusions based on an overly narrow view of what constitutes proof, or by failing to embrace intellectual rigor while excusing it as completeness, you may be making a mistake. That's not ad-hominem, and different, I think, from the mean-spirited attacks I often recieve and sometimes dish out ;).
From your answer above I see no reason to change my mind about your religion. You just assert its "truth" without offering any evidence, and condemn and insult me for not seeing that "truth" and bowing to it. Not very convincing.
As I said, your narrow, scientistic approach to proof may be your standard, but I find fault with it, finding it insufficient for assessing what is real and what is not, and being overly narrow.
You are free to limit your knowledge and epistemology that way. I think therer are logical reasons not to, and find my reasoning compelling.
However, you have been dismissive of my genuine, generous and detailed (not to mention humble ;) answers to your question about proof. That's fine if you find them inconclusive, but you have not provided any point by point reason why you reject them.
I am sure you could. But I will continue to assert that your position is insufficient. And you may assert that my evidences are not real proof. But at least I have provided my reasoning, my epistemelogic method, and my reasons for believing.
I still feel that you've condemned me unjustly.
Perhaps so. I have little idea how seriously or deeply you have considered these things. Furthermore, I may have misjudged your level of intellectual honesty and rigor surrounding these questions.
I guess that when I hear you ask certain questions or make certain statements in classic cynic, atheist form (like "but what is your PROOF?"), accompanied by some hyperbolic language, I do a knee jerk and make some assumptions about your approach to spiritual matters.
I am sorry about that, I'll try to assume the best, even if I am suggesting that you MAY not have done your homework honestly ;)
Scott Adams wanks again!
"Scott Adams makes his argument against atheism. Let's just say that Adams makes McGrath look like a brilliant, nuanced genius by comparison. All he's got is the cartoonist's version of Pascal's Wager, and his own profound misconceptions about what atheists are."
Hi Cineaste:
In the article you linked to, the author comically ignored the entire argument Scott Adams made. PZ doesn't seem to have read Adam's argument at all, otherwise he would have known that Adam's addressed the very issues PZ thinks are so damning of Adam's argument.
your friend
Keith
The article is not really logic, it's a hit-piece dressed up as logic, an angry atheist rant against someone who is asking questions in an open discussion format. Basically, Adams is being open minded, admitting that he is no expert, but asking some common sense questions. And the atheist faithful don't like it. Adams has poked the proverbial sleeping dog, and the dog turns out to be rabid.