Backhanding Pascal's Wager

If god exists and one doesn't believe, one goes to hell.
If god exists and one does believe, one goes to heaven.
If god doesn't exist and one doesn't believe, nothing happens.
If god doesn't exist and one does believe, nothing happens.
A smart person will believe in god just to hedge his bets.

If you are a non-believer it is likely you have had this argument tossed at you in a discussion somewhere. Believers seem to think it is a knock-out punch of some kind. Apparently it never occurs to them that their particular god might not be the one under discussion or, whomever the god might be, it might not accept a "just-in-case" kind of faith.

Pascal's wager is a pretty sorry excuse for an argument for faith, but it does shed light on one of the truly deep and ultimately most dangerous facets of faith. If god doesn't exist (it doesn't really matter which god) but human kind continues to put faith in the idea that one does, such assumption may well prove fatal to the entire species. Believing that there is a god who is looking out for us, who will ultimately protect us from our own foolishness, and who will eventually guarantee our success, is nearly suicidal if the god doesn't exist. It is exactly like jumping out of an airplane assuming there is an operable parachute in the pack. If there isn't death is the likely outcome.

Most of the people who deny that a) the global climate is changing rapidly for the warmer and, b) that human activities and decisions could possibly be the cause if it is, are religious fundamentalists. Their rejection is partly based on the arguments for global warming coming from scientists. Religious fundamentalism is fundamentally opposed to knowledge, inquiry, curiosity, and open debate. God has reveled everything we need to know to be successful as a species; belief is what matters, not knowledge.

I wonder if a deeper reason for their rejection is understanding that a god who would allow humankind to fade away (as most other species have) would be antithetical to the god they claim.  In most religions the continuation of at least a remnant of redeemed human kind, for all eternity, is integral to the god belief. Humanity must be important in the cosmos, god must be paying attention, and therefore we need not worry about the future of mankind. The only impetus is to find a place in heaven for our individual self by an act of faith.

Overpopulation, poisoning the earth, and an escalating war are all actions exacerbated by religious belief. Breeding without regard to population concerns is a notorious facet of religious fundamentalism. Many of human kinds most pressing problems (hunger, dwindling supplies of clean water, lack of resources) and the planet's (poisoning of the environment, deforestation, mass extinctions, habitat loss) can be directly attributed to unchecked and out of control human population growth. Actively working against population control is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. That it condemns millions to a short and miserable life while threatening the future of the entire species makes such a stance fundamentally immoral. Yet much of official religious ideoloogy continues to reject birth control, smaller families, and the emancipation of women.  (Religious people, as usual, are not nearly as immoral as their doctrine might suggest. The vast majority of women with access to birth control have taken advantage of it at some point in their lives, religious or not.)

The imagery of "subduing" the earth has its foundations in religion as well, and hints again at the dangers inherent in belief. We never imagine a nursing baby as "subduing" its mother, such a thought is nearly perverse. Force the image in your mind and your heart will whisper another thought; neither the mother nor the baby is likely to survive.  Our hearts know what faith refuses to admit. Religious doctrine is completely ignorant of the fact that the human species is a very late comer in the expression of life on earth. Insisting that we are the very reason for earth's existence is hubris in the extreme.

War is not exclusive of religion though I would argue that religion adds a savage edge to war. Still, it is only religion that believes a nuclear war in the Middle East is foretold by god, and will lead to his return to take up Kingship over the cosmos. People who believe such perversity should be spending time in our finest mental hospitals while we seek a cure for their insanity. Instead they hold positions of government where they can help start the war they look to with their twisted idea of hope.

When we actually lay faith aside and look at the cosmos as it is, here is what we see. There is no god particularly interested in human kind. There is no reason that our species should continue in the face of a sometime hostile and uncaring universe. The careful and diligent application of our intelligence to understanding our place in that universe, and discovering the avenues we may take in order to enhance our chances for long-term survival, are the only things that might protect our future. Neglecting to do that by betting a god will do it for us is shear madness.

Madness cannot long survive this cosmos.

Pascal got it completely backwards. If one is a little less selfish, a little less conceited, the argument goes like this;

If a god does exist and human kind acts as it one doesn't, the future is hopeful even if the god does not act as we assume.

If a god does exist and human kind acts as if one does, the future is hopeful only if the god acts as we assume it will.

If a god doesn't exist and human kind acts as if one doesn't, the future is hopeful.

If a god doesn't exist and human kind acts as if one does, there is no future for human kind.

Smart people will act as if there is no god.