Smith's Wager

I'm sure everyone here is familar with Pascal's Wager (and the many things that are wrong with it). Is anybody here familar with Smith's Wager?

Smith's wager has the following premises:

1) I will only believe in god if there is a rational argument for his existence.

2) Until now, no one has been able to provide such a rational proof for god's existence.


What are the results of acting on these two premises?


A) There is no god. So when the atheist dies nothing happens, and when the theist dies nothing happens. I suppose the atheist "wins" here since he didn't waste so much time praying and going to church, prattling on about Jesus and Angels, etc, etc.

B) There is a god, but it's the Deist god. That is, there is an impersonal god who created the univesrse but now has withdrawn and doesn't care about us or interfere with the world in any way. Same situation as A, basically.

C) There is a personal god, but he is just. Do I (lacking belief) have anything to fear from god in this case? Well, if I lived a good life and never did anything we can say is bad or worthy of eternal torment (I'm not sure what would qualify here!), how could god punish me solely for my non-belief? How can it be just to punish someone for using their ability for rational thought (that god endowed them with)?

It is absolutely harmless to lack belief in any god. Hence any truly just god would not punish anyone solely for lacking belief in him.

Obviously from the above it's pretty clear the Christian god is not just... this brings up case

D) There is a personal god, but he is unjust. Now what? It may appear that the good theist is safe here, but is he really? If god is unjust then he is inherently unpredictable -- he may reward virtue, or not; he may punish "sinners", or not. If he's unjust, we cannot predict what he will do at all. In fact, if god is unjust, couldn't all of Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) be an elaborate ploy perpetrated by god to find those foolish enough to believe something on faith so he can throw them into hell? Note that there is no way for anybody to refute this in this case. Pointing to the bible obviously won't work because that is from god and god is purposely trying to trick you. God could be orchestrating a huge, elaborate, yet perfect hoax on humanity.

So if god is unjust, everybody is in the same boat. Believers and non-believers alike must be ready to suffer under the capricious whims of an unjust god.

In all cases, non-belief "wins", so by Smith's Wager non-belief is the clear, rational choice to take. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]


(Btw, this is named after the well known atheist George Smith).

Anybody have any thoughts/comments on this?

[chezlaw]

close but this fails the 'you cannot chose your beliefs' objection.

chezlaw's wager is similar but better (imho).

behave in the way you believe is good.

chez

[J. Stew]

#1 leaves out the argument that God can't be defined in conceptual terms. If you say a tree has green leaves with a brown trunk with sap in it, that is true, but it doesn't encapsulate the truth of the tree. The concepts about the tree aren't the tree itself.

[Darryl_P]

I would say your assumption in case C is impossible since we are all sinners. If you've never repented then I'd say God would regard that negatively. If you believe you have nothing to repent then that's even a bigger negative IMO.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say your assumption in case C is impossible since we are all sinners. If you've never repented then I'd say God would regard that negatively. If you believe you have nothing to repent then that's even a bigger negative IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
If god exists then my sense of justice is from god and your god is not just.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
I would say your assumption in case C is impossible since we are all sinners. If you've never repented then I'd say God would regard that negatively. If you believe you have nothing to repent then that's even a bigger negative IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

A just god wouldn't create a fallible creature and then punish it for being fallible. So, your counter-argument is flawed.

[J. Stew]

Chez, how do you define the 'knowing' that tells you you know what is right. Does it come from learning and figuring stuff out, or is it something intrisic in you. If it is something already in you do you call it yourself or God, how do you define this knowing that seems undefineable?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would say your assumption in case C is impossible since we are all sinners. If you've never repented then I'd say God would regard that negatively. If you believe you have nothing to repent then that's even a bigger negative IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

A just god wouldn't create a fallible creature and then punish it for being fallible. So, your counter-argument is flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]
its also why non-belief doesn't trump belief in Smith's wager.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
close but this fails the 'you cannot chose your beliefs' objection.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point. But, here we don't have a non-believer somehow forcing themselves to believe without evidence/reason solely for the reward, like in Pascal's wager. Although it may cause someone to question their belief in god ... in which case they could change their mind but not for any "reward" offered by Smith's wager, since it doesn't offer one (except to free your mind from superstitions, I guess).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
close but this fails the 'you cannot chose your beliefs' objection.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good point. But, here we don't have a non-believer somehow forcing themselves to believe without evidence/reason solely for the reward, like in Pascal's wager. Although it may cause someone to question their belief in god ... in which case they could change their mind but not for any "reward" offered by Smith's wager, since it doesn't offer one (except to free your mind from superstitions, I guess).

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed Smith's wager isn't really a wager but is a refutation of Pascal's wager.

On the other hand, Chezlaw's wager is a beaut

chez