“And what i f we pick the wrong religion? Every week we’re just making God madder
and madder!” “Testify!”
When the enlightenment philosopher and polymath Dennis Diderot was
confronted with Pascal’s Wager, he succinctly replied, “An Imam could reason just as well.”
His point was that there are many proposed Gods, and that Pascal’s Wager could be just
as easily applied to many of them (not all, and I’ll explain why shortly, but certainly
many). Today, this criticism is known as the Objection of Inconsistent Revelations, and
when wielded appropriately, it exposes the wager for what it truly is… a complete and
utter con. “The church within, which alone salvation is to be found, is not necessarily
the Church of Rome” so says John Leslie Mackie, “but perhaps that of the Anabaptists
or the Mormons or the Muslim Sunnis or the worshippers or Kali or of Odin.” We are
not, as Pascal claims, “embarked” to wager upon a two-sided coin, but rather a thousand-sided
die! I’m Stephen Woodford, thanks for joining me, and this is Inconsistent Revelations.
Pascal’s Wager is, not surprisingly, attributed to Blaise Pascal (and rightfully so), but
it’s worth noting that variations have existed for millennia. For example, 400 years before
Christianity was even a thing, the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher, Protagoras, was agnostic
of the Olympian Gods, but he continued to worship them nevertheless in case of their
existence. This seems a little odd, granted, but as Stephen Fry has noted, the Greeks believed
that if the Gods exist, they are “Capricious, unkind, malicious mostly, temperamental, envious,
and mostly deeply unpleasant”, and so Protagoras’ worshipping, despite his agnosticism, makes
sense. Some argue, however, that he worshipped merely for show – to avoid the wrath of
the Athenians – and truth be told, this might well be the case. In any case, facing
death or exile, Protagoras sailed to Sicily, but alas, his ship
was wrecked, and Poseidon claimed his prize.
Kamehameha!
An even earlier rendition of Pascal’s Wager
(and more precise) can be found in the Kalama Sutta, in which the Buddha urges followers
to practice their faith in case of an afterlife, stating: “If there is a world after death,
if there is the fruit of actions rightly & wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with
the break-up of the body, after death, I will reappear in a good destination the heavenly
world. […] But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly
& wrongly done, then here in the present life I look after myself with ease — free from
hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble.” Indeed, this rendition is in fact so similar
to Pascal’s Wager that it even boasts, like Pascal, that belief is beneficial no matter
the truth. And to name just one more example, in the Sh'i'i hadith of al-Kafi, al-Sadiq
declares to an atheist, “If it is the way you say, and it is not true, then we as well
as you are all saved. However, if it is the way we say, and it is true, we are saved but
you are destroyed.” So, to get back to Diderot, not only can an “Imam reason the same way”,
but long before Pascal’s time, an Imam DID reason the same way. Hence, we have the objection
of Inconsistent Revelations. Simply put, Pascal failed to justify the exclusion of other infinite
Gods, and consequently, a true wager would require, per God, two additional columns and
two additional rows – and the result would be what I’d like to think Ian Hacking would
term “A monstrous matrix.” Now I say “other INFINITE Gods” and not simply “other Gods”
for the same reason that Diderot said an Imam and not a Babylonian. Compared to the aforementioned
wagers, what makes Pascal’s unique is his powerful mathematical premises – and especially
his almost monotonous emphasis of the nature of infinity. To give a few examples, towards
the beginning of his most substantive presentation he says “A game is being played at the extremity
of this INFINITE distance”; then, after presenting a few premises, he states “If
you gain, you gain ALL; if you lose, you lose NOTHING”; then, again, he states “Wherever
the INFINITE is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there
is no time to hesitate, you must give all”; and as if this wasn’t enough emphasis, he
concludes by saying, “Our proposition is of INFINITE force.” His underlining point,
as already covered within this series, is that the infinite consequences of Heaven and
Hell necessarily eclipse any and all finite cost, since, in Pascal’s words, “The finite
is annihilated in the presence of the infinite, and becomes a pure nothing.” But if we take
his precise reasoning here, and apply it to the question of why he ignores other Gods,
we can presume his response (which, for the record, is exactly what apologists do today).
Different Gods threaten different consequences for not grovelling at their feet. If you don’t
worship the Mesopotamian God of death, Nergal, he will withdraw his protection, and in doing
so enable demons to torment you, but no matter what those demons do – no matter how much
suffering they inflict, since they can only inflict a finite amount, this consequence
becomes a pure nothing when contrasted against the infinite Hell threatened by the Christian
God, Yahweh. Given this, the threat of the latter simple super-dominates the threat of
the former. “If men are capable of any truths”, Pascal continues, “this is one” of them.
If we contrast any finite number, no matter how large, against the infinite, it does become
a nothing. You see, you thought I was going to make the same slip-up that I did last video,
didn’t you? “You are fake news!” Okay, let’s get back on track. Given the nature
of infinity, we can discount all Gods who deal in finites, BUT, we can’t discount
any God who deals in absolutes! “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.” And so while the
monstrous matrix is now tamed, it nevertheless still delivers a fatal bite. Since MULTIPLE
Gods threaten infinite consequences, Pascal’s CRUCIAL premise of “If you lose, you lose
NOTHING” is no longer valid, and hence the super-dominance is now gone. Even if we presume,
for no good reason, that one of these “Sith-Gods” exist, no matter which specific Sith God you
wager on, “If you lose, you lose EVERYTHING.” Again, presuming that at least one of these
Sith Gods exist, if you wager on Pascal’s Yahweh, and it turns out that Yahweh doesn’t
exist, rather than losing nothing (as is the case in Pascal’s matrix), you lose everything!
Likewise, if you wager on Allah, and it turns out that, say, Osiris exists, then it’s
the eternal lake of fire for you. Now since you stand to lose no matter what Sith God
you bet on, Pascal’s Wager utterly crumbles. It is revealed for what it is… a con. And
as a cherry on top, note that we haven’t even mentioned the fact that Christianity
alone has over 33,000 denominations, and that many of them insist that followers of the
other denominations are going to straight to Hell. Indeed, the monstrous matrix's true
form is significantly more grotesque than I've depicted here. Wager, then, with ALL
hesitation, as grovelling at one potential warlord’s feet may earn you the infinite
wrath of another. Aren't these beings just… lovely? How they judge us not by the content
of our character, but by whether we hallow their name. Pathetic, really. Anyhow, I’m
Stephen Woodford, and as always, thank you kindly for the view, and an extra special
thank you to my wonderful patrons and those of you who’ve supported the channel via
other means. Wager, then, without hesitation, that he is! And that is why I hired someone
to do the French. Don’t judge me… anyway, Debunked-- click the link below to see a complete
unpacking of this. One of which you’re included. The box is good quality. In all seriousness,
are you alright? “Yeah.” Good, ‘cos I don’t care.