It’s true that scientists don’t know exactly how much world temperatures will rise if we persist with business as usual. But that uncertainty is actually what makes action so urgent. While there’s a chance that we’ll act against global warming only to find that the danger was overstated, there’s also a chance that we’ll fail to act only to find that the results of inaction were catastrophic. Which risk would you rather run?

Firey points out that Krugman fails to apply this argument to other areas, having dismissed similar points made about reforming social security.

In Krugman’s view, policies to address Weitzman’s 5 percent risk of ecological disaster by the early 23rd century (Weitzman’s time frame, which Krugman didn’t specify) are responsible and moral, but policies to address the economic crisis of Social Security’s insolvency in less than four decades’ time are unnecessary and overly pessimistic.

Taranto, in turn, points out the deep similarities between Krugman's argument and Pascal's Wager, including the same flaws of false dichotomy and using infinite (or large unknown) outcomes to sidestep any actual issue of probabilities.

Another problem with Pascal's Wager is that it presupposes only two possibilities: Either God exists more or less as Christians conceive of him, or he doesn't exist at all. But from a standpoint of pure logic, this is completely arbitrary. What if God exists and it is Muslims or Mormons or atheists who go to heaven?

Krugman's thinking is similarly binary: Either global warming is true and the stakes are enormous, or it isn't and they are trivial. But how do we know that global warming won't turn out to be beneficial, or that efforts to avert it won't have catastrophic consequences?

One difference between Pascal's Wager and Krugman's is that whereas Pascal was making a case for individuals to embrace faith, Krugman is arguing for collective action--which is to say, he wishes to use the power of government to impose his beliefs on others.

Both articles are worth a read.

Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose.

This proposal is based less upon a pure leap of faith and more upon the consequences that Pascal saw in the uncertainty of human reason. Quite properly in my opinion, some atheists -- including Richard Dawkins as mentioned but not explained in the Wikipedia article -- have claimed that sort of an argument can work in different directions than the one Pascal seems to have intended in his notes towards a general apologetics. Since they were just notes and since Pascal gave signs of being one of the most extraordinarily and profoundly intelligent thinkers in history, we should be cautious in assuming we know how, or even whether, he would have used his Wager in that book if he'd lived to write it.

In any case, the various aspects of the certainty and uncertainty of human knowledge need to be explored and those of good faith, if only faith in human moral integrity, need to explore matters from their perspective.

Yet, there's a way in which Pascal's wager can be extended in a direction quite uncomfortable for those who have a belief in a personal and loving God, as taught by orthodox Jews or Catholics or others with firm and specific theistic beliefs.

If you do believe in God as described by some orthodox form of Judaism or as described by some form of Christianity with strong beliefs, then it would seem your best bet would be to give yourself fully and entirely to Him. Don't just bet what matters little. Don't just push your pile of chips into the pot. Climb up on the table and sit in that pot with those chips. Put yourself fully and totally in play.

Christian theism is able to explain human greatness as a result of being created in the image of God. And wretchedness or depravity can be traced back to the fall or original sin (Genesis 3). Thus, the human race (albeit in a finite way) reflects the likeness of God or exhibits God-like characteristics, while simultaneously possessing sinfulness, guilt, and moral corruption. Consequently, Christian theism is the best explanation for the human condition. In philosophical format, Pascal's anthropological argument would appear as follows:

1. The doctrine of original sin implies that humans have a dual nature, both great and wretched.
2. It is observed that greatness and wretchedness obtain to the human condition.
3. Therefore, the doctrine of original sin is quite plausible.

In other words, the doctrine of original sin (humans were created great but fell into corruption) implies that humankind is capable of cognition, self-awareness, creativity, and altruism, as well as diversion, murder, deceit, and injustice; it is observed that all of these characteristics obtain to the human condition; therefore, the doctrine of original sin is quite plausible. The hypothesis fits the facts better than rival views, therefore it is considered true to reality.

The form of the anthropological argument is abductive rather than deductive or inductive. Pascal preferred to appeal to a compelling explanation rather than to argue for Christian theism through the more traditional "proofs" of natural theology. The argument, then, is a theological hypothesis used to explain the surprising historical observation of the dual nature of the human condition. This abductive form of reasoning is often used convincingly in scientific theories and legal cases where a hypothesis is presented as the best explanation for the evidence.

Admittedly, the doctrine of original sin is confrontational. However, it is not unreasonable. Critics may claim it is an affront to reason, but it is not illogical. It fits the facts and explains the human enigma: great and depraved. As Pascal confidently asserted, no other worldview or religion solves the riddle or offers so compelling an explanation as the claim of the Christian religion (Pensees, 149/430).

If successful, the anthropological argument demonstrates the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. The advantage is that the biblical revelation of God, in particular, is justified; whereas, the cosmological and design arguments simply support a general theism. Since the Judeo-Christian worldview is the best explanation for the duality of the human condition, all of the following biblical attributes of God obtain: aseity, omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, transcendence, immanence, sovereignty, holiness, righteousness, and love, etc. Moreover, it is also possible to draw some conclusions from negation or to describe what God is not. That is, it can be reasoned that depravity is antithetical to God. God is not wretched, finite, proud, deceitful, hateful, envious, transitory, or profane. In short, Pascal avoided the traditional "proofs" for God's existence because the God derived from natural theology was merely the God of Deism and not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

As an abductive or best explanation hypothesis, the anthropological argument demonstrates that Christian theism is a rationally justified belief. Christianity is respectable or "worthy or reverence" as an explanation for human nature (Pensees, 12/187). The argument provides enough to make Christian theism rationally permissible or intellectually respectable. However, because other explanations exist, one is not necessarily epistemically obligated to believe. For example, it would not be irrational to remain agnostic. That is to say, the argument provides a "weak rationality" for Christian theism.

Recognizing the "weak rationality" of his argument and the possibility of persisting in agnosticism, Pascal granted equiprobability for the sake of his famous wager (Pensees, 418/233). In the face of ongoing agnosticism, the wager forces one to choose either to believe that God exists or that God does not exist (not choosing has the same results as choosing not to believe in God). Given an equal chance and finite stakes the following results obtain from the wager: If one bets that God exists and theism is true, there is infinite gain. If one bets that God exists and theism is false, there is virtually nothing to lose (finite stakes). However, if one bets that God does not exist and theism is true, there is infinite loss. If one bets that God does not exist and theism is false, there is virtually nothing to gain (finite stakes). Consequently, prudential reason dictates that it is irrational not to believe in God, thereby shifting the case for theism from "weak rationality" to "strong rationality." Thus, the rational person is obliged to believe that God exists.

References:

Groothuis, Douglas. "Deposed Royalty: Pascal's Anthropological Argument." Available from http://www.ivpress.com/groothuis/pdf.php/doug/000073.pdf. Accessed 31 July 2008.

________. On Pascal. Wadsworth, 2003.

Pascal, Blaise. Pensees. New York: Penguin Books, 1995.

Velarde, Robert. "Greatness and Wretchedness: The Usefulness of Pascal's Anthropological Argument in Apologetics." Christian Research Journal 27, no. 2 (2004). Available from http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2790935/k.B34E/JAP500.htm. Accessed 31 July 2008.

everything is a game
everything is an addiction
everything is an obsession
every action compulsory

when i type for myself, there's no need to clarify exactly what i mean. because i know what i'm trying to say. no sense of meaning when i type through my consciousness-- only the sense of self.

i stopped before i tried to shoot her
and to prevent further abuse
i tried to back up my brain on the computer
but the file was in use

developed a program to develop programs
a language was the key
images of holograms
you cannot trust what you see

what if truth was subjective
and whenever you tried to do good,
reality denied you of positive action
and what you did was not what you should

i hate the heap paradox and the ship of theseus!

I can't live with it and I can't live without it, because there is no sense of identity, pointwise or otherwise! Technically, I am a certain percentage already dead (i.e. dead skin and hair) yet, I, as an individual whole, am simple alive.

And where does consciousness simply emerge from? Is there a quantifiable, definable, physical way we can judge the things we consider to be aspects of consciousness? I feel like I'm alive. I feel like I am. I think therefore I am. But what am I?

I already know I am without knowing what am I!

Bah, the definition of self through action ever since the realization of the arbitrary nature of human existence. How does that not please me? How can we find one answer to the problem of life without understanding the depths from which where it came? The psychological answer to these questions of philosophy may be, "it does not matter." It feels like... Occam's Razor. It makes no difference whether or not we know why we exist, because we exist.

All we are are particular particles. To a certain degree, we must accept that some molecules possess malevolence. How can atoms bomb a test?

I feel so insensitive. I am on a different wavelength. I am not feeling good vibrations.

And I say all this knowing that operating on the level I am currently, questioning humanity, makes me feel somewhat less human.

Deal with it. Fall out of the unknown. Be a computer. Calculate the complexity of the problem. The problem is not worth the processing time. It is inefficient to think so much about something so ineffective. What potential do you have to gain from thinking about such things, human? Make a game tree.

Problem: Life

Calculate Meaning of Life                                         Live Life
Possible Gain (~0%)                                                  /    \
Possible Loss (~100%)                            Do Something | Do Nothing

Can't think clearly today. Not good. Reminds me of Pascal's Wager.

Clearly, a human has many decisions, and many judgments to make in order to make a choice otherwise we'd just be asses.

The sense of self, in this post, is clearly closely associated with the purpose of the self or the identification of what one is supposed to do.

The reason why the search for action is the search for meaning is because one of the most demanding pressures being pushed on an individual through all walks of life is the search for definition in the eyes of others. How can you live in a society of people that do not respect you?

However, not only caring about the eyes of others, we must also be able to search for identity for our own eyes. Generally, when the world seems to have gone mad, we do not care about the opinions of people based in a separate reality from oneself. In this case, we must resort to standards of our own reality. This tends to be a rarity due to the natural formation of societies, which pride themselves of the intelligence of the masses. The exception to the rule, where the world has gone mad, is particularly compelling for existential quandaries in the literature.

We can elaborate many things on the sense of self with words and ideas, but not so much in the scientific and more quantitative. Psychological analysis would lead to discussions on the self as a logical construct of a mind in control of a body. Neurological self would be a series of chemical reactions. Philosophical self is a topic of discussion of morality and moral behavior.

As much as I like to ramble on about things I might think I know about, this post has exceeded 800 words, and I think it's about time to wrap it up. I'll stop wasting my time with vicious circles and references to wikipedia. Have a good day.

]]> http://christianscribbler.wordpress.com/?p=29 Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:59:18 +0000 Kliska http://christianscribbler.wordpress.com/?p=29 If you want to get a large segment of fundamentalist atheists stirred up when you are dialoguing with them, mention good ol' Pascal and his wager; it works almost every time. Quite frankly, I can't blame them really, I used to react in a similar fashion as a believer, albeit with humor rather then mocking disdain. When I first read about and studied Pascal's idea, I laughed. I completely understood what Pascal was getting at, but my first thought was that I could not believe that anyone would come to faith by it, and my second was; what faith would they come to?  Many of my college students ask the same thing in my Intro to Philosophy course.

However, over time, I've changed my mind. Why? Interestingly enough, I "met" someone online who came to believe in God because of the wager. And, the person is a well known (not extremely famous) actor from Hollywood. (He's a full fledged and post-happy member of one of the smaller message boards I used to frequent daily, if not hourly.) He's a "good" man; smart, witty, nice, great sense of humor, and very into politics...and happens to have come to belief via the wager.  So, if it turns out that there is but even one soul that winds up being saved because of the wager, it is worth it.

The second reason I no longer laugh good naturedly at the wager, is that I finally looked at it for what it was, and only as what it claimed to be within the limits of Pascal's own philosophy (which I don't entirely agree with). The key is remembering that it is supposed to be a wager...it is placing a bet. When placing a bet, it is logical to look at all known possible outcomes, factor in known variables, and then place your bet. Here's a quote from Blaise himself,

"God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? ...You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose... But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."

So, to avoid Pascal's fallacy of begging the question; you basically have two main splits: the side that says the world is purely materialistic; naturalistic philosophies come under this heading.  The other side says there is indeed something beyond the mere physical.  The first choice, or cut, is clear...if you believe something exists and nothing really does, you haven't lost a thing.  So, you might as well come down on the side of "something."

Once you are there, it is a logical matter of exclusivity.  Out of known religions (it doesn't make logical sense to entertain unknown ones) which ones have deity/deities that desire acknowledgment, or perhaps worship, or else you get a bad ending?  We can cross many religions/spiritual beliefs off the list right off the bat; for example, Hinduism, Buddhism, Baha'i, many of your native/aboriginal peoples' beliefs...even Judaism, for Gentiles at least, etc...

Then, if I'm going to place my bet (which is basically one's soul), then I'm probably going to do some research and see which faiths are still viable.  If God is God, you'd want to wager on one that can keep a religion going, or at least I'd logically rather bet on one that could... and the list gets narrowed down quite a bit.  Which religion has the most evidence for the truth of it?  Many claim to have sacred scripture; which of those has reliable, historical documents, if prophecies are contained therein, which have come true, etc...  Blaise Pascal, from all appearances, would have been betting on the Christian God, this is one of the reasons that many criticize Pascal's wager, but I believe if people do the logical reasoning, it does come down to a clear choice.

Now, I don't believe in God based upon Pascal's wager, and I don't recommend anyone else place all of their eggs just in that basket as Pascal left it; though if the logic works for you, by all means do!  But, his basic idea of betting on an outcome, does have logical grounds, if looked at as an actual gamble.  I don't believe that Pascal's wager, in and of itself, offers an airtight basis for believing, but I do think it is enough to make people think, at least it should; I think it is an interesting way to get people to at least contemplate the afterlife.  From there it is a matter of research, study, and yes, perhaps a bit of prayer.

Well, there's a fellow out there named Edward Current who has taken this to its logical conclusion.

Of course the problem with this wager is that it assumes that if God exists, he's too stupid to tell when someone's faking belief just to get into Heaven. It's invalid theology and frankly rather silly.

On the other hand, it makes for a fun video. :)

The a prior expected post-life utility P(U) is: P(heaven)*U(heaven) - P(hell)*U(hell). [we don't need the 'no god' scenario in this calculation, just let U('afterlife' given no god)=0]

The utilities cancel out in the equation. But do the probabilities necessarily cancel out? I'd like to ponder this question a bit in the following.

The first thing to consider is that by picking monotheist god X, you loose the chance to bet on god Y (because god Y like God X do not like polytheists. We don't consider the 'no-hell' alternatives here, they are not interesting). But if there's an infinite amount of (potential) monotheist gods, which there is, it would seem that you would be ill adviced to bet on any of them. At first glance, it looks as if you pick a monotheist god, the likelihood of going to hell is infinity minus epsilon. If you assume that the likelihood of going to hell if you don't believe is = 1, then of course you're better off with a god than without one, but a difference of epsilon isn't really anything to cheer about considering the outlook. The message here is: Pascal really should have focused more on hell, he really shouldn't have wasted his time on heaven, the likelihood of any of us going to heaven given the above considerations is lower than the likelihood of me winning every lottery in Denmark for the next 100 years without ever buying a lottery ticket.

No, picking just one god doesn't give you many winning chances at the lottery. So how do we improve the odds? Well, polytheism is a place to start. Picking at least a few different Gods would surely be a better idea than to stick with just one, that way you get to hedge your bet a little. But only a little. And you still have the problem that the monotheists might be right. Not only you might pick the wrong 10 gods, you still have the problem with the infinite amount of monotheist gods to deal with. This of course also leads back to an additional consideration when it comes to monotheism: By picking one god, you not only risk pissing off all the other monotheist gods, you might also anger Zeus and Vishnu. Yes, the likelihood of going to hell would still in such a model be 1 minus epsilon, but it sort of puts things in perspective, no? The other side of this coin is that even if you're a polytheist, you can't hedge your bet 100% by picking 'all gods' - even if you pick all the possible polytheist gods (which of course would be impossible) there would still be that infinite amount of annoying monotheist gods to deal with. Besides, for every 'openminded/tolerant' polytheist god you can think of, I can think of just as many that would never accept you worshipping both Odin and Zeus. Actually, the 'hedging' you're doing isn't really hedging at all, you just exchange one set of risks with another, without changing the overall risk level at all.

Now, it's probably not true that the game is rigged so that we have such a low chance of picking the right God. God rigged the game himself, and for every god that invents a system rigged like this, I can think of a god that would rig it differently. So the problem of our low chance of success, which leads to an E(U-afterlife) much lower than zero, can thus be solved by stating the obvious fact that for every vindictive and egocentrical god that demands you worship him (/her) in order for you to go on to 'eternal happiness', there are just as many that just don't give a damn what you do 'down here', they let you 'move on' no matter how much you abuse them during your life. In this way the expected post-life utility of zero can be restored.

One last thing to note. If any of the popular gods are true, those gods are necessarily 'evil' in that they all send a majority of humans to hell, keep on reincarnating us, or whatever else it is they do to punish us when we misbehave and don't follow the divine plan, do as we're told or whatever. Either your God-model, with a God that punishes unbelievers, is true, or God is good. You can't have it both ways, for if you disagree, what we disagree about is the meaning of the word 'good'. And if your model of God is the real deal, then that God to me is a terrible [something]. No matter which one(s): Pretty much all the Gods we humans have invented so far are a bunch of scumbags.

Would it not be expected that hell would be, mind the use of the word, demonised? Just like during the Cold War, where both the USA and USSR postured themselves as more powerful and more virtuous than their opponent, heaven and hell would be the same. Propaganda served to rally the citizens behind each superpower, to create an unwavering belief that their nation was superior to their sick, immoral adversary. Could it not be plausible that heaven may not be all its cracked up to be, and that perhaps hell is as nice a place to spend all eternity. Perhaps the devil, portrayed in the bible as the epitome of evil, a harnesser of hate, a malevolent torturous being, would be favourable towards those who shunned the blind faith of religion. As God’s staunchest opponent, would the devil not appreciate those who caused his followers the most strife in the material realm?

So Pascal, if you were alive for me to debate with you, I urge you to enjoy your eternity with a god who professes to condone gang rape of virgins, genocide, slavery, sexism and racism. Don’t let me stop you from having a good time. As for me, who can be certain? I must say I do look forward to meeting Charles Darwin, John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins and other fascinating individuals who share my abominable views on humanity, religion and the universe!

The mathematician, Blaise Pascal, had a theory on belief in god—he supposed that one was far better to wager on god’s existence than not. His theory is not a wager as to if god exists or not but rather he had a cost benefit analysis whereby he said that if you believe in god you will get more benefit than if you don’t if god actually exists as opposed to if he doesn’t exist than you are in the same place as someone who has spent their whole life as an atheist. So in basic terms if god exists and you believe in him then you get more than you would get than if you were in any other position.

As you can see Pascal had worked it all out in terms of the best bet to gain the most. Most of you will of course have seen the problems with this kind of argument already. First, one cannot force oneself to believe in god—if you don’t believe in god and pretend to worship by attending services and adapting your morals to suit your religion’s and you end up at the pearly gates where you are greeted by an al-knowing god that knew that you had just been paying lip services to him all your life. You see this just won’t do—if you are unable to believe then you cannot just fain it—to borrow a phrase from a famous theist Martin Luther—‘Here I stand, I can do no other’.

Or suppose that you die and you are confronted by Zeus and he demands to know why you didn’t believe in him? Surely if he is anything like the old testament god that hates false idols you would be better not believing in any gods rather than the wrong one! Then there’s the anti-Pascal wager[1] idea that is if you could bet on god not existing and live a better life now like by not wasting time by worshiping you could bet on him not being there and get more out of the here-and-now.

[1] Dawkins, R., "The God Delusion" (Transworld Publishers, 2006) at p105

When we do have slow moments, I sneak in some reading, mostly of blogs and news sites. Yesterday I happened upon a New York Times article reminiscent of an Oregon high school science teacher's simple yet forceful logic for why we should act on global climate change. It works, even if you don't believe in the anthropogenic aspect of it, by hedging risk.

Risk management is inherently impotent when it ignores the true definition.

Elroy Dimson of the London Business School once defined risk as meaning that more things can happen than will happen. That is a fancy way of saying we don’t know what will happen, but it is a useful formulation when we take up the task of risk management. If more things can happen than will happen, we can devise probabilities of possible outcomes, but — and this is a big “but” — we will never know in advance the true range of outcomes we may face.

Now, the article is actually about the real estate market and doesn't actually mention climate or warming, but it does frame the concept of risk management within what many of us are already familiar with -- Pascal's Wager, or Pascal's Gambit.

For those who could use a refresher, mathematician Blaise Pascal (of Pascal's Triangle in high school math, yes) posited that even though we cannot definitively reason toward God's existence, we should wager that he does. If God exists and we lived as if he does, i.e. believing in him, attending church, performing good works, then we have gained everything: eternal life. If it turns out that God does not exist and we lived as if he does, then we have not lost anything except an hour or two every Sunday. I have several objections to dear Pascal's wager but I'll leave that for a later post.

Now, either humans are contributing to the warming planet (a) or they are not (b). In a certain sense, (a) is actually a good thing, because it gives us some modicum of control over the outcome. What matters in this discussion of risk is our response. If in fact we are responsible for climate change, then we can follow one of two paths -- this is an oversimplification, but bear with me -- we can act on it by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (x), or we can proceed with business as usual (y).

Weigh the costs and benefits of each course of action. If we take action, via (x), and (a) is true, successful steps will slow warming, minimize environmental damage and social upheaval, and mitigate negative impacts on infrastructure, most notably damage to coastal centers. The cost of such action(s) if (b) is true = the usual reason cited by those who do not subscribe to AGW. Primarily, slowing of economic growth.

The cost vs. benefit of (y). If (b), all is good. We continue to grow economically and the climate is agreeable. If (a), society will face disastrous prospects. while humans are an adaptable species, we have spent centuries acclimated to a certain climate, establishing civilizations in geographically advantageous areas, which only remain so assuming that sea levels don't rise and precipitation levels remain stable. Entire populations are in danger of losing their homes, biodiversity is threatened, arable land shifts toward the poles, and as a result of all of these, we can expect quite the migration. Not as much of an issue in a country as large as the U.S. But what about the Maldives? Bangladesh?

To put it simply:

For (x), if (a) is true, we have lost nothing but potential economic growth, but we may save entire populations. If (b) is true, again, all we have lost is potential economic growth.

In the case of (y), is (a) is true, we have put ourselves in quite the predicament, and those in developing nations, and our children and grandchildren will have to deal with the consequences. If (b) is true, then we have simply gained.

(y)+(b) is clearly the best scenario here. But which of the worst case scenarios is more acceptable to you? (y)+(a) or (x)+(a)? The latter, I presume.

RISK management, then, should be a process of dealing with the consequences of being wrong. Sometimes, these consequences are minimal — encountering rain after leaving home without an umbrella, for example.

So if you're wrong, either way, which is the better outcome? Think of it as investing in a 401(k). You may forgo the ability to buy something extra every paycheck for a couple of years, but you're saving for your future financial security. Why do we think it perfectly acceptable to manage our own risks this way but refuse to do so for the common good?

Besides, (y)+(b) is not as rosy a picture as you may think. We still face the problem of limited resources putting an end to economic growth. Without a significant investment in renewable technologies and materials, we will exhaust terrestrial resources, whether they be material or energy, and our concerns about economic growth would be moot. Sustainability is becoming more and more critical as Earth's population grows.

Footnotes:

1. For the purposes of this discussion, economic growth is discussed in conventional contexts, such as GDP, revenue, and profitability.
2. Sustainability is good for the economy in the long run but goes against what is considered economic 'growth' and does not figure into many businesses' emphasis on sequential growth.
3. The debate has become decidedly more convoluted since I first saw this presented as an argument; some claim that the earth is actually cooling and others deny the effect of CO2 on global temperatures. I am excluding these scientifically irrelevant considerations. The former can be attributed to solar minimum and the latter ignores observed and tested fact.

he was the Pascal of Pascal's Wager (that it's better to bet on God, then against, despite lack of evidence or reason)

• "A trifle consoles us, for a trifle distresses us."
• "Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sign of truth."
• "Man's greatness lies in his power of thought."
• "Justice and power must be brought together, so that whatever is just may be powerful, and whatever is powerful may be just."
• "Since we cannot know all that there is to be known about anything, we ought to know a little about everything."
• "The least movement is of importance to all nature. The entire ocean is affected by a pebble."
• "We know the truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart."
• "Through space the universe encompasses and swallows me up like an atom; through thought I comprehend the world."
• "Hjertet har sine grunner som forstanden ikke kjenner til."
• "Dette brevet ble lenger enn vanlig fordi jeg ikke hadde tid til å skrive kortere."
• "Kjærligheten har ingen alder, siden den alltid fornyer seg."
• "Tanken utgjør menneskets storhet."

Here is Bad Religion on faith, God and atheism.

Bad Religion, as the name might suggest, are fairly critical of religion in their songs. That is perhaps an understatement! But instead of the mindless anti-religious abuse some bands have popularised, Bad Religion’s objections are considered and reasoned. This may have something to do with the bands front man Greg Graffin having a doctorate in evolutionary biology, but even before he obtained his degree the band has made intelligent philosophical statements in their music. Song writing duties are split between vocalist Graffin and guitarist Brett Gurewitz, and both musicians are equally capable of writing thought provoking intelligent lyrics.

So perhaps in the way the religious people reaffirm their beliefs through song, Bad Religion has written the perfect hymns for non-believers. However, Greg says in the song “No direction”, “no Bad Religion song can make your life complete”. They can make you stop and think though.

I’ve decided to be quite selective and only choose half a dozen Bad Religion songs, although there are of course many more to choose from. I’ve chosen no more than one from any one album, and added my interpretation of what I feel the song conveys. Enjoy.

From 2004’s Empire Strikes Back, “Live again – The Fall of Man” is clever response to those that still use Pascal’s Wager and dedicate their life to faith and dogma, closing their minds to the diversity of thought that exists in the here and now. And as scientific advancements erode the foundations of religion, is it really rational to maintain a belief in something that may not even be true?

"Live Again - The Fall Of Man"

the first cause argument is inductive, it was never intended to convince non believers, it requires belief and provides clarity so long as you take the premises. arguments such as the first cause argument were proposed by school of thought such as Kalam or great thinkers including thomas aquinas, all of which seem to be alot more intelligent than you. i suggest a little more open mindedness is required. after all theres always the brilliant argument of, theres no harm in believing, but if you argue so strongly against a God and then He turns out to exist, then you're in trouble.

Nevermind the idiocy of an "argument" which is not intended to be convincing, but which yet somehow is supposed to provide "clarity," check out what's at the end. Yep, there it is, good old Pascal's wager, that "brilliant argument", a nice juicy soccerball all tee'd up for me to kick the living shit out of, although it's such a dead horse, it's not really much fun kicking anymore. But, to stretch the metaphor beyond its carrying capacity, since this commenter has seen fit to toss the fossilized bones of this carcass my way as if it were still a live argument, kick it I shall.

Sometimes I think theists must imagine that because "Pascal's wager" has a person's name attached to it, then it must considered to be a good argument. Nope, Pascal's wager is notorious mainly for the idiocy it contains.

Oh, where to aim my first rhetorical kick?

Here's an example of something I found in youtube comments:

DONT READ THIS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT TO AT LEAST 3 VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN 2 DAYS . THIS reaLLY WORKS

Well, "...after all theres always the brilliant argument of, theres no harm in believing, but if you argue so strongly against..." the veracity of this comment then it turns out to be true, "...then you're in trouble."

So, do you believe that you'd better post that comment? Aren't you worried that you might die in 2 days? No? Why am I not surprised. Yet, exactly the same "logic" is at work in Pascal's wager. Those who accept Pascal's wager ought to be off on youtube right now, posting their 3 comments, on fear of death. Likewise, Pascal's wager works for Santa Claus. What's the harm in believing? The reward is hey, presto, presents! (And I remember getting Christmas presents from Santa, so Santa has one thing going for him religion doesn't -- actual hard evidence -- in toy form. (Evidence better explained by other hypotheses of course -- I have to write this down in case you, dear reader, are determined to be deliberately obtuse, and suppose that I think Santa exists.)

A threat is not evidence. Not even a credible threat is evidence, never mind an incredible threat. If a very real thug burst into your house brandishing a shotgun and an fMRI machine to read your thoughts, (yes I know, an fMRI can't really do that, play along for a moment) and pointed the shotgun at your face, and the fMRI machine at your brain, and said, "Start believing that the earth is flat, or I'll blow your head off!", you might be afraid, you might tell him that you believed the earth was flat, but, you could not actually believe the earth was flat. The shotgun pointed at your head has no bearing on whether or not the earth is flat. It is merely an unrelated threat, artificially linked to your (lack of) belief in the flatness of the earth by a homicidal maniac.

Now, lets change the scenario a bit. The homicidal maniac doesn't burst in, instead he makes a website. The website says, "Whoever reads this had better start believing my garden gnome's finger is a shotgun, or else my garden gnome will hunt down your children and blow their heads off with his finger-shotgun, but he'll wait until after you're dead to do it!"

Now, there's still an "argument" which consists only of a threat, but the threat is not credible, and what the "argument" wants you to believe, (under penalty of this threat) is that the threat is true!

How retarded is that? Pretty fucking retarded.

Pascal's wager suffers from identical retardedness.

You are threatened with denial of entry to heaven, and in most cases, you are threatened with a ticket reading "ADMIT ONE TO HELL" for the "crime" of failing to believe that these threats are true (along with some other baggage.)

No evidence is given for the existence of any afterlife, nor is any evidence given for quite specific claims made about what such an afterlife would be like, nor is any evidence given for the very specific claims made about what actions one might take to influence how this purported afterlife will turn out. Essentially, you are presented with an "argument" which is really the assertion a threat which is not credible, and one of the things the "argument" is attempting to get you to believe is that the very threat it makes -- the sole coercive power of the argument -- is true!

What a complete and total piece of shit.

Ignoring that the wager utterly fails on the above grounds,
there are still more problems to be found.

Which god? In which god am I supposed to believe, if I accept the wager? Odin? Thor? Zeus? Allah? Yahweh? Cthulu? the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Quetzlcoatl? The wager is silent on this weighty matter. Choose wisely, for if the wager is valid, and you be so unlucky as to choose incorrectly, "... then you're in trouble." Suddenly, the odds don't look so good. But don't worry, your mommy and daddy already figured this out, and that's why you can just accept the same religion they did without any real consideration of the others.

There is not even any suggestion in the wager that there is a correct answer to the question, "which god?"

Who's to say that the supposed deity responsible for this testing is testing us not for faith, but wants only those who aren't gullible fools? Who's to say he hasn't planted all these conflicting religions to weed out the gullible, and the rewards and punishments of the afterlife are meted out according to how skeptical or gullible (faithful) one was, respectively?

Imagine you are confronted at death with this deity, and it says to you, "You were one of the smart ones, not easily fooled. None of my traps caught you, not Christianity, not Islam, not even Buddhism. Good for you." or, maybe it says, "Tsk tsk! you fell for Christianity? The talking snake? A deity impregnating a virgin, to be born as a human, having himself killed, supposedly resurrecting himself -- all this supposedly more than 2000 years ago, and you believed this on the say-so of a book? What's wrong with you? Sorry, you are defective. Report to the repair center to get your brain fixed and try again -- that's right, hell's not real either.) You may scoff, but there is just as much evidence for such a deity as this as the Christian or Islamic deity -- which is to say, none. The Christian and Islamic deities are exactly as improbable as this one.

And, lest you think, say, the Christian god would not deceive you so... Oh really?

II Thesssalonians 2:11

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

If this supposed god can lie to one set of people, it can lie to another.

So, were I idiotic enough to think that Pascal's wager was a good idea, I could take the wager -- and wind up as an atheist with respect to all the religions of the world, on account of not wanting to wind up on the bad side of a god who was filtering out the gullible.

So Pascal's wager, ignoring the fact that the argument just plain doesn't work, doesn't actually argue for anything specific. It can be taken as an argument for belief in any god, as well as for an argument for belief in none of
the proposed gods.

A third problem with the wager is that even if, say, Christianity (or whatever religion the wager is applied to) turns out to be true, and even ignoring that the wager is not the least bit convincing (at best providing only motivation to find convincing evidence elsewhere), if one is motivated by it, isn't that a rather selfish motivation? For a religion supposedly mainly about being unselfish, isn't it a bit problematic that the motivation for sticking to this "unselfish" religion is at its core, selfishness? You're being "good," sticking to the religion, seeking out reasons to believe, shutting your eyes to arguments which might convince you that you're wrong -- because you want to get to heaven, and avoid hell -- doing it for entirely selfish reasons. You don't think your all-powerful, all-seeing deity will see this? "Oh, he'll forgive you, the important thing is that you believe, not why you believe." Excuse me while I roll my eyes. If that's your deity, it sounds like an idiot.

A fourth problem with the wager is more of a problem with the Abrahamic religions in general than with the wager specifically. Why the threats? Why the attempted coercion? If these religions are really true, then what's the problem with having some straightforward reasons for believing in them? Why this need for "faith", of which the best definition I have found is "believing to a degree of certainty which exceeds what is warranted by the evidence."? Why the coercion? These sound like the ideas used to prop up an idea which can't stand on its own.

"Oh noes, our religion is implausible!"

"Quick, invent 'faith', the notion that believing our religion to a degree of certainty which exceeds what is warranted by the available evidence is a virtue."

"Oh, good idea." But let's make the definition less explicity, and all vague and goofy. The idea is to get people to feel good about themselves for believing, and bad about themselves for disbelieving. We can't have the bald definition spelled out like that.

RIght, of course. How's "the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,"'

Perfect.

Ooh, let's invent a bad place to send unbelievers after they're dead, full of fire and pain... it'll scare the crap out of little kids, and they'll be surefire believers.

Good idea... and we'll need a good place for the believers to go.

It's obviously a load of crap. There's no evidence of any afterlife, and everything we know about the workings of the brain, which is quite a lot these days, seems to indicate that there simply is no afterlife.

Also embedded in the wager is that nothing is lost by believing. So, there's no sacrifice in being, say a Christian? All this talk of how difficult it is to be a good Christian, etc., is just a pack of lies? You don't have to go to church, and listen to some idiot prattle on every Sunday? You don't have to tithe? You don't have to go around feeling like your an unworthy sinner? You don't have to be careful what you read, lest you read something which might shake your faith? You do lose something. You have to enslave your mind to faith.

Ok... I guess this horse is dead enough for now.
Edit: May 13, 2008. Here are links to #1 and #2 in this series (#2 contains the comment which lead to this post, #3).
Retarded arguments against atheism #2 (first cause)
and Retarded arguments against atheism #1 (appeal to consequences).

Pascal decided that the existence of God could neither be proven nor disproven using reason and logic, but that if you were a betting man, you should bet that God exists.

The wager goes something like this:

• If God does exist and you believe in him, you're in good shape when you die.
• If God does exist and you don't believe in him, you're in bad shape when you die.
• If God doesn't exist and you do (or don't) believe in him, you've lost nothing when you die.

Pascal figured that any reasonable person would look at the results and decide that believing in God is the best position to take.

Most of us look at his logic and have a little chuckle: It assumes that the only qualification for getting into heaven is believing in God. It also assumes that God won't mind if you decided to "believe" in him based on the math... But, it's still a popular argument to make, believe it or not.

So I've got a wager of my own to make.

Derek's Wager

• If you live your life in a positive way, but don't believe in God, there's no reason that you should go to hell if he does, in fact, exist.
• If you live your life according to the rules of various religions, you're more prone to doing intolerant and hateful things (not assured, of course, but more prone).
• If God does indeed exist, and he'd send a humanist atheist to hell over a homophobic, misogynistic fundamentalist, then he's kind of an asshole anyhow.

My point is, that when you look at the big picture, it makes more sense to live in a way that attempts to make the world better for everyone around you, than to concern yourself with what the rules of your religion say. There's of course room for debate over what a "positive life" entails, but I think humanism is a much better framework to start from than religion.

Since gods, goddesses, spirits and faeries aren't a part of my immediate life, I'd rather concern myself with the people around me and what they need to be happy. If a God would begrudge me that, while refusing to provide unequivocal proof of his existence, well... That's a bit petty now, isn't it? Sounds more human than divine.

It was an Australian comedian who alerted me to my own ignorance. In the hilarious TV series "John Safran vs God", John goes around taking the piss out of various religions, all in a fairly good-natured manner. He highlights the absurdity of some faiths and the hypocrisy of others. Great viewing for people of all faiths and no faith. After years of being out of bounds, religions finally got the satirical critique they deserve. Atheism did not get off easy though either. In one stinging segment, he singled out atheists for their arrogance, pointing out that most atheists happily ridicule fantastical creation myths, but have no grasp of their own belief in the beginning of the universe or man. Could they describe the Big Bang theory or evolution?

At the time I was a convinced atheist, but although I knew what I did not believe in and why, I had little to no idea what I did believe in. A dozen books later, I think I might be a little a closer to knowing what I believe.

Perhaps one reason why people opt to believe in a god is because it is easy. There is a book and in it you find the answer to all questions about life. You can congregate with other believers and have someone tell you what to believe. If you can successfully ignore the outside world, you will have no reason to feel insecure ever again. You do not need a degree to understand the belief system you just need blind faith. You just follow what you’re told. You just accept that “the bible says so” and that will suffice as a response to any inquisitive arguments from hell-bound heathens.

Atheism on the other hand has no such security. The science that supports the universe not needing a god is complex and inaccessible. You will more than likely require a degree to understand it.

Don’t let that put you off. Just because you don’t understand it, does not make it untrue. And don’t be put off trying to understand it.

Fortunately many authors have come to our aid, to try and explain the science that supports a god-less universe and also propose how atheism is as moral as theism, if not more. Which is helpful, when often atheists are portrayed as unethical. (See Monopoly of morality)

Some of these books I read along time ago, so unfortunately cannot recall my impression upon finishing, or particular passages that struck me as particularly brilliant. Ratings are incredibly subjective and are a guide for the books worth for readers with little science or philosophy background who want to understand the debate. I acknowledge that some books reviewed are not intended for beginners, however they are the books I have read on the topic. Let us start with most well known.

Richard Dawkins has fast become one of the most despised men on earth. Arguable it is because he is so brilliant. The fact that he is unapologetically anti-religion may also fuel his loath-ability. He has written dozen’s of books, including the breakthrough The Selfish Gene and the Canterbury Tales inspired history of the human species, The Ancestor’s tale. (Both of which sit on my shelf awaiting the conclusion of my journalism degree!)

It is his book The God Delusion that has stirred the most rage from theists, and not just for the title. Like the title says, Dawkins argues that religion is a delusion and provides little to society, as it distorts science, corrupts politics, pollutes morals, well screws everything up!

As a scientist, Dawkins is capably explains why science and religion do not gel. Most things that religion used to have a monopoly over as explanatory tool can now be dealt with using science. And regarding those things that science is still working on, Dawkins argues that filling these gaps with god is both arrogant and ignorant.

Although I enjoyed the way he dealt with the scientific flaws of intelligent design, which he smashed, it is Dawkins dissection of theist arguments that I reveled in. I won’t give them all away; you’ll have to read Dawkins witty prose to discover them for yourself. Dawkins is also at his best when he deals with example of scripture justifying immoral acts, such as rape, genocide or murder. Theists can block their ears to science but they cannot reject their own doctrine. Well they do or they says it is metaphoric, but there are some examples that can only be taken literally.

Some arguments may seem to some a stretch and perhaps require elaboration, but most of his arguments seem sound to me and worthy of consideration. Particular impressed with the chapter on morals, which addresses many misconceptions and lies.

What I took away from the book: The idea of god as a gap filler. Just because there is a gap in our knowledge doesn’t mean we will never know. Inserting god as the answer is lazy, and certainly not science.

The next biggest title is Christopher Hitchens’ God is not Great. A lot of what is in here is covered in God Delusion, so I have a hard time distinguishing between the two. That is not to say that you don’t need to read it if you’ve read Dawkins, because Hitchens is a brilliant writer.

I really enjoyed this book. Perhaps because it has less of the science I don’t understand, and more of the philosophical arguments I enjoy. Like Dawkins, Hitchens argues that “religion poisons everything” and after this book you may likely agree. The book is full of some brilliant humour, which is reflected in some of the fantastic chapter titles, for example, why heaven hates ham and Religion kills.

Like Dawkins, Hitchens does a great job at using religion against itself, by showing how scripture does not reflect the illusions that organised religions like to portray. Hitchens shows how despite their insistence, God is neither loving, forgiving, peace or fair. Begs the question, why would one worship god?

What I took away from the book: Apart from a new desire to read everything that has Hitchens name on it, I like how he discredits all religions, western and eastern, throughout the ages of history, liberal and fundamentalist, and proposes that only be discarding the lot, does our species have a future.

Rating 9/10

Sam Harris had great success in the states with Letter to a Christian Nation and also in his controversial (aren’t they all!) The End of Faith. Again this one covers much the much the same material as Dawkins and Hitchens, although he focuses on the threat that religion poses, and is more anti-theist, than pro-atheist. Then again the other two fall in the category too, which perhaps has a lot to do with what sells books.

I’m not too sure about others but I felt like Harris was trying to out-angry the other atheist academics and End of faith seems a bit sensationalist. He basically argues that no religious person, particular Muslims, can be liberal, if they follow their scriptures they will want to kill all unbelievers. Perhaps he is right. Their scripture do command some awful things, and we should bear that in mind. But not all religious people follow their religion ‘to the book’, so thankfully we are still alive! This has more to do with the advance of liberalism and secularism than religion. I don’t think claiming that all religious people are going to kill you is the best way to end religion. It’s a good way to spark violent conflict though.

I suppose I’m being harsh on Harris, although I did enjoy his book, and got a lot from it. Again, I like using scripture against the religious. I just struggle with the intolerance. Perhaps one cannot tolerate someone who wants them dead. It’s a fair argument.

What I took away from this book: Paranoia. But arguably a rational paranoia. Maybe I just don’t want to think about it. Harris is most likely right!

Rating: 7/10

Perhaps the ideal place to start ones search for the meaning of atheism is The Portable Atheist. In this collection of atheist, agnostic and even deist writers, one finds a huge array of arguments and ideas. And there are some big name contributors. Too many to mention, so I will go through my favourites.

The book goes in a chronological order, starting with Lucretius, Omar Khayyam, Thomas Hobbes and Benedict de Spinoza. Although I had a hard time reading the old styled language, there were some interesting ideas. David Hume’s Natural History of Religion of Miracles is brilliant, although again, it requires some patience and tenacity to read. A segment from James Stuart Mill’s Autobiography is included which makes for interesting reading, and Karl Marx is typically difficult to read (something about proletariats). Mary Ann Evans or George Elliot as she was known rips into evangelicals, Darwin concedes his lack of faith and Leslie Stephen defends agnostics. Anatole France takes the piss out of miracles and Mark Twain takes time out to delve into more serious writing and highlights the fallacies of religion. Joseph Conrad explains his distrust of the superstitious, Thomas Hardy grieves his loss of faith and Emma Goldman provides the Philosophy of atheism. H.P. Lovecraft ridiculous religion as “childish” in a letter to a friend, Carl van Doren debunks the notion that atheists are without ethics and H.L. Mencken provides a touching memorial service for all histories dead gods. Sigmund Freud was a difficult read, but worthwhile nonetheless, and selected quotes from Albert Einstein left his lack of faith in no dispute (hands of theists!) A tract from George Orwell’s A Clergyman’s Daughter is included, as is religious man (weird, I know) John Betjeman and secularist Chapman Cohen writes on monism and religion.

That brings us to Bertrand Russell’s an outline of intellectual rubbish. I had not read Russell before this so was not prepared for the eloquent prose, the sharp wit, and the irrefutable genius of his arguments. I would recommend this book just for this essay.

Philip Larkin provides two poems, Aubade and Church going, Martin Gardner takes the myths of the wandering Jew and the second coming to task, and Carl Sagan links religion to primitive fears and rips into theology and religious experiences. A scene from John Updike’s novel Roger’s version is included, J.L. Mackie argues against Kung and the existence of god, and Shermer’s brilliant scientific creation story (from Why Darwin matters which I review below) mocks genesis. A.Y Ayer refutes claims he did not see the afterlife following a near death experiences, Daniel Dennett thanks ‘goodness’ not god, and former evangelist Charles Templeton fairwells his former friend Billy Graham. Of course Dawkins is included with some of his brilliance, Victor Stenger argues there is certainly is no god, and Dennett returns with a definition of religion. Elizabeth Anderson argues against the inherent morality of theism, Penn Jillette declares there is no god, Ian McEwan considers the end of the world and Nobel prize winning physician Steven Weinberg weighs in on the debate. Salman Rushdie writes a letter to the world’s 6 billionth citizen, Ibn Warraq smashes the crap out of the Koran, Sam Harris attacks Christianity for the Inquisition, A.C. Grayling ridicules the label ‘fundamentalist atheist, and finally Ayaan Hirsi Ali explains why she became an infidel.

Okay, well I have named them all. More than you probably needed to know, but you need to know that you need buy this book! Surely if every theist read this book, there would have to be something in there that changes their mind.

What I took away from the book: A lot! But most of all was a newfound love for the work of Bertrand Russell. I don’t know how I got by before I read his insightful brilliant prose.

Rating:10/10

Darwin’s Dangerous Idea is the Daniel Dennett book I bought after enjoying his piece in the portable atheist. I perhaps should not be including it with these reviews because I haven’t finished reading it. I should have heeded the advice of Amazon reviewers who said it was a hard read. I thought perhaps I was advanced enough. I was wrong.

That’s not to say it is not good. It’s great. But I struggled with the book for two reasons. Firstly, Dennett rambles on. He makes a point, then he remakes it, and then again. You are given more than enough abstract examples. Perhaps he does this because of the subject matter. Most people with little biology background will struggle with this one. He does a great job of explaining thing

His abstract examples do provide some amazing concepts, which left me thinking for days. Particularly enjoyed the Library of Babel metaphor to understand how many genetic combinations there are. I didn’t get up to the third part of the book, which is on ethics, which I may have understood easier.

What I took away from the book: I really enjoyed the explanatory metaphors. Serious mind fuck material. I really should try finishing this book!

Rating: 6/10

Michael Shermer takes on the intelligent design movement in his brilliant Why Darwin Matters: the case against Intelligent Design. Shermer is much more tolerant and understanding compared to the polemics reviewed above, as he was once an evangelical Christian. In this book he comes to the defence of Darwin and evolution in the face of the growing movement of ID.

Basically Shermer illustrates why ID is a combination of crap science and crap theology. He proves that ID is not science and is an adaptation of Christianity in an attempt to account for scientific advancements. The book is also a great beginning point for those wanting to know more about evolution.

It is refreshing to see an atheist remain civil instead of the stereotypical rabid polemic. That’s not too say I don’t enjoy a good writer take pleasure in ripping apart superstition, but Shermer is a welcome change of tack. And he is certainly capable of exposing ID for the pseudo-science that it is. He even manages to explain why conservatives and theists should embrace evolution. Brilliant.

What I took away from the book: ID proponents are idiots. Fear not atheists, ID is a joke. Religion is in damage control.

Rating: 9/10

Lewis Wolpert’s Six Impossible things before breakfast is not explicitly a book on atheism, but in seeking evolutionary reasons for belief, Wolpert makes sound arguments for a godless world.

He basically looks at why people believe ridiculous things. He finds examples of how maintaining irrational beliefs historically assisted our survival. In order to operate in the world, we must have some basic understanding of the world, whether right or wrong. We must understand consequences, as in cause and effect, in order to survive.

Wolpert does finish the book stating that religion is good for people, and we must respect religion and those who are religious. After a book in which he seeks to discover why people believe ridiculous things, and defending the materialist position, it is weird that he finishes up saying religion is good for society and that it would be dangerous to rid ourselves of it. He doesn’t really say why adequately.

What I took away from the book: It is helpful to understand why people ignore rational scientific evidence in favour of mysticism. I’m not sure about his last minute defence of religion though.

Rating: 7/10

Preston Jones, a history professor at a Christian college and Greg Graffin, singer in the punk band Bad Religion, discuss science, religion, naturalism and Christianity in Is Belief in God good, bad or irrelevant. Jones, a massive Bad Religion, emails Graffin, who has a PhD in Zoology, and the two engage I a somewhat friendly debate.

In many of the early emails Graffin comes across as an arsehole rock star, as at times he arrogantly dismissive of Jones’s thoughts on matters. As the correspondence progresses Graffin becomes more respectful and some interesting conversations take place. This book is certainly more of a tolerant dialogue as opposed to a passionate polemic like many up the page. The book can be a bit hit and miss though.

Of course I think Greg wins, although fails to de-convert Jones. He has an ability to sum things up succinctly and competently, such as “God is an answer for people who have no idea how the physical world works”.

I think this book is going to appeal more to people who are Bad Religion fans and want to know more about the guy who rights those incredible lyrics. To anyone who is not a Bad Religion fan I could not recommend them more, especially if you want music with intelligent lyrics on science and religion. In fact the best rejection of Pascal’s Wager you will hear is Bad Religion’s “fall of man”.

What I took away from this book: The book confirms what I already thought: Graffin is a genius.

Rating: 7/10

Although not one of the ‘atheist crusaders’, Jared Diamond is a scientist whose books have fuelled my interest in science and human history. Diamond is accessible and easy to read, so there’s no excuse not to understand his work.

Guns, Germs and Steel is brilliant, although more of a human history book than a science of philosophy book, it does offer a sound argument as to how and why human society is as it is now. In a way this book helped mould my worldview as an atheist more so than any of the others I’ve reviewed. The other book of his I’ve read is the Third Chimpanzee, which is a book an evolution, and the differences and similarities between man and chimpanzees.

What I took away from the books: The third chimpanzee provides a clear and accessible overview of evolution and how everything in our lives, from language, to relationships, are products of evolutionary processes. Guns, germs and steel, should change the way you think.

Ratings: 10/10 (both books)

Safran quipped on his show that if you walked up to your shelf and pulled your copy of Stephen Hawking’s Brief history of time, the bookmark would be where you left it a year ago… on page three! Perhaps more so than highlighting the ignorance of atheists, it shows how difficult it is for people with limited knowledge of science to understand things like the big bang or evolution.

Because Hawking’s Brief history of time is considered the biggest selling book that no one has read (or something to that effect), I decided to tackle the simpler Briefer history of time. Anyone who failed with the Brief history of time should give the Briefer history of time a go. Having next to little knowledge of physics and its laws did mean I had to read each page at least twice, it was fulfilling when you finish a chapter and actually understand what was put forward.

There is a lot in this book that will blow your mind. The hardest thing is to comprehend the numbers involved, millions of years, light-years, etc. Of course most of it you have to take Hawking at his word because you can not possibly know either way whether he is right without dedicating your life to the science involved. Some things I just could not understand though, in particular the entire chapter on time travel had me lost.

What I took away from the book: I do not pretend to be an expert on the big bang, or even pretend to really understand the phenomenon, but I get the gist. Just.

Rating: 8/10

Currently on the shelf awaiting reading and review:

Evolution for Everyone by David Sloan Wilson (I’ve read the first few chapters, great so far, recommend for beginners.)

The Ancestor’s Tale by Richard Dawkins

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

The second half of Dawkins Dangerous idea by Daniel Dennett

I have not included the superb why I am not a Christian, by Bertrand Russell, or any other classics, as I have focused many on more recent releases. Perhaps the subject of a future blog could be historic writing that has influenced me. These are by means a full collection of contemporary atheist literature; it is merely what I have read. There are certainly notable exceptions, some of which may be more vital than any on this list.

The intent of this blog is not to discredit religion or argue that it is all crap, there are enough blogs dedicated to that (I quite like this one, this one and this one), with perhaps more knowledgeable authors than I. The intent of this post is to encourage atheists to challenge their own ignorance and base their lack of faith not just on the ridiculous arguments for faith, but the brilliant arguments for atheism. Oh, and try and understand some of the science!

Cheers,

Paul

Dear Christ-o-sphere,

This is not an attempt to deconvert you; I just wish the tide of sanctimonious Christian crap about atheism would cease. Strangely enough, I don't believe I’m an inherently evil person because I don’t believe in your Sky Daddy. I don’t need a higher power to tell me what is right or wrong. I don’t need the threat of Hell or the lure of Heaven to keep me in line. When determining my moral principles I use logic with a hefty dose of empathy. I don’t rely on the say-so of men from thousands of years ago, from a book which blatantly contradicts itself.

I don’t run around saying “How can Christians have morality? They believe in a god which advocates all sorts of terrible nonsense, like that a woman should marry her rapist!” I don’t believe all Christians are evil just because of the depraved crap done by individual Christians and the Church(es).

If Christians don’t try to convince atheists of their moral superiority, they point to Christianity as the only logical religion, usually including some form of Pascal’s Wager in their reasoning. It is slightly annoying when people try and convert me, but I understand that at some basic level you think you can save my soul. I find this tendency almost sweet in its narrow minded inept way. Just please don't use Pascal's Wager. It is stupid on so many levels, and that stupidity has been proved over and over and over again. If you do use Pascal’s Wager, it pretty much confirms my suspicions that you are just another idiotic Christian. Not only that, but most atheists have heard it before, and using it will convince them of your inability to argue with anything approaching logic.

I fully understand that if any amount of Christians actually read this letter they will see some parts of it as a justification for their prejudice against atheists, particularly if they actually explore my blasphemous blog. That being the case, I urge Christians to not take the word of whatever nearby authority figures in regards to atheists, or even my own word. Look at a variety of atheist works; look at religions other than your own. Let your children explore the world and let them make their own decisions.

If nothing else, please remember all Christians are not moral, nor are all atheists immoral. We are just human.

Sincerely,

Hellonhairylegs

Here is a question for you… Would you rather live your life as if there were no God and then die and find out that there is? You have got nothing to lose believing in God and trusting in the Lord, well nothing but eternity if you don’t.

The problem is the argument (Pascal's Wager) is flawed.
Pascal's Wager is essentially what He is Risen said. "If there is a God and you believe , you go to heaven but if you don't believe, you go to hell. So why not just believe cause if there is a God you go to heaven and if there isn't you lose nothing"
The first problem is you do loose things. You loose 10% of your earnings, your Sundays you have to fallow stupid rules that limit what you can do (like sex before marriage, sex with people with similar genitalia what you can say and other things). There is a cost.
And then there's "which version of which religion?" There are many religions out there. Which one do you believe? Islamic hell would be worse than Christan hell so wouldn't becoming a Muslim be better?
Then there's the problem that the bible is contradictory about whether you go to heaven by work or faith.
It is also a fallacy, its an apparel to fear.

Christens, do not use Pascal's Wager. It makes sense to you cause you believe but to some one who believes differently or does not, its not going to work. Just imagine a Muslim using a similar argument to try and convert you.

Lastly I offer you my wager
Whether there is a god or not live as if there isn't one and try to make the world a better place for you and others. If there is a god and its good you will be reworded, if there isn't, you lived your life and made the world a better place.

Een stelling: Mensen die zeggen open te staan voor de overtuigingen van anderen staan alleen open voor ideeën die aansluiten bij hun eigen overtuigingen.

Zodra ze in de overtuiging van anderen iets vinden wat haaks staat op hun eigen overtuigingen staan ze er niet meer open voor; soms weigeren ze dan nog te praten over die andere overtuigingen, soms weigeren ze zelfs nog te spreken met mensen die die andere overtuigingen aanhangen.

Vaak ook komt het "open staan" voor andere overtuigingen voort uit het niet genoeg afweten van de andere overtuiging of het ervoor kiezen iets te negeren in de overtuiging van de ander. Een goed voorbeeld is de tolerantie die christelijke mensen zeggen te hebben voor de islam en het jodendom en vice versa. Ik zie niet goed in hoe dat mogelijk is. "...we aanbidden allemaal dezelfde god, we noemen hem alleen anders..." zei iemand ooit tegen mij, een wijdverbreid misverstand met wel meer aanhangers. Deze mensen hebben er klaarblijkelijk bewust of onbewust voor gekozen om enkele complete tegenstrijdigheden die tot de kern van de overtuigingen behoren te negeren! Hoe kan iemand die gelooft dat Jezus de zoon van de christelijke god is tolerantie hebben voor een geloof dat zegt dat Jezus een bedrieger was (jodendom) of dat Jezus slechts een profeet was en niet eens de belangrijkste (islam)? Dat lijken me drie compleet verschillende religies die niets met elkaar te maken hebben en ik zie niet in hoe deze drie wereldgodsdiensten elkaar kunnen tolereren; dit lijkt me stof voor een paar fikse oorlogen. Die zijn er natuurlijk ook (geweest) en daar verliezen alle partijen bij. Daarom hebben veel mensen waarschijnlijk besloten de andere godsdiensten gewoon te negeren en dat te maskeren door het "tolereren" te noemen. Een verstandige beslissing maar het draagt niet bij tot de geloofwaardigheid van de religies in kwestie. Je kan jezelf als christen een religieus persoon vinden maar bedenk wel dat in de ogen van elke andere godsdienst je net zo'n heiden bent als elke atheïst!

Uit bovenstaande zou je kunnen concluderen dat het volkomen arbitrair is een bepaald geloof aan te hangen. Er zijn letterlijk duizenden verschillende godsdiensten en varianten en de meeste staan in complete tegenspraak met elkaar. De uitspraak "...het merendeel van de mensheid gelooft in god..." is dus niet steekhoudend, juister zou zijn "...het merendeel van de mensheid gelooft in een god...". Welke god dat precies is ligt aan je omgeving en de tijdsgeest. Bijna vierduizend jaar hebben miljoenen mensen geloofd in Zeus, Apollo, Hera en de rest van de Griekse goden; een overtuiging die dus twee keer zo lang een belangrijke godsdienst is geweest als het christendom, maar als nu iemand zou zeggen nog in Zeus te geloven denk ik dat de meeste mensen hem voor gek zouden verklaren.

Er wordt geregeld gerefereerd door religies aan de hoeveelheid aanhangers die ze hebben. Vaak zijn dat indrukwekkende cijfers, echter zonder enige betekenis aangaande de waarheid van de desbetreffende religies. In Nederland is er ook een grote bevolkingsgroep die gelooft in Sinterklaas: kinderen. De enige reden dat ze stoppen met geloven is dat hun ouders (of vrienden) hun vertellen dat Sinterklaas niet bestaat. Omgekeerd is dat ook precies de reden waarom veel mensen wel in een god geloven: hun ouders hebben ze nooit verteld dat god niet bestaat. Ik zie zelf trouwens meer reden om in Sinterklaas te geloven dan in een god: ik zie elk jaar een hoop zwarte pieten in Nederland, op televisie komt de goedheiligman op zijn stoomboot aan en als zelfs mijn supermarkt er aandacht aan besteedt moet hij haast wel echt zijn!

Mij wordt als atheïst door religieuze mensen vaak hypothetische vragen gesteld omtrent de "hel" zoals "...wat als god toch bestaat en je gaat naar de hel...". Dat zijn wat mij betreft onzinnige vragen daar ze allemaal varianten zijn op "Pascal's Wager", een eeuwenoude vraag waar atheïsten al eeuwenlang hetzelfde antwoord op geven "...als er een god bestaat, wie zegt dan dat jouw god de god is die de beslissing maakt of je naar de hel gaat, de kans is zeer groot dat je de verkeerde god aanbidt en dat wordt waarschijnlijk zwaarder bestraft dan geen god aanbidden...") Ik heb zelf ook een hypothetische vraag voor alle gelovige mensen (ook mensen die in mediums en geesten geloven) die zeggen open te staan voor de paranormale denkbeelden van anderen:

Wat zou je doen als een gelovige kennis van je zegt dat volgens zijn eigen overtuiging jouw overtuiging de verkeerde is? (Ervan uitgaand dat die kennis een andere overtuiging heeft dan jij). Bijvoorbeeld:

- Een christen zegt tegen iemand die in mediums gelooft "...mijn priester zei me dat mediums  bedriegers zijn..."

- Een moslim zegt tegen een christen "...volgens mijn imam gaan alle christenen naar de hel..."

Zou je dan nog steeds open staan voor de denkbeelden van de ander? Of zou je hem voor gek verklaren? Of zou je hem geloven? Ik kan jullie in ieder geval vertellen dat gisteren op de Dam in Amsterdam een paarse mammoet* me heeft verzekerd dat Sinterklaas in ieder geval wél bestaat!

LOGATES

* voor meer over de paarse mammoet zie het artikel "Bewijslast, feiten en holle frases"

Index van alle artikelen

“Agnostic/Atheists Wager - Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe when there is a significant lack of evidence of his/her existence.” [1] [ 2]