Concept Clarifier in
separate window


The question of theism vs. atheism has been seen, quite rightly, in terms of which premise is true.  But after millennia of failure to prove the issue either way, should we not move on to the next question?  If we don't (and probably can't) know which premise is true, possibly we can determine which is most worth betting on.

Pascal, in my opinion, gave us a good start, but failed to take his reasoning far enough.  While not specifying the God he spoke of in his wager, the rest of his writings make it clear that it was the God of the New Testament.  He figured that the benefit of betting on this deity and being right would far outweigh the benefit of betting against him and being right.  Conversely the punishment for betting against this deity and being wrong - yada yada.

But the God of Pascal's wager was arbitrary.  The same logic could have been used for Allah.  And the New Testament deity rewards or punishes based not on people's ethics but on their believing the right spiritual sales-pitch.  Furthermore, those rewards or punishments are both exorbitant and eternal.  Those two factors make him not only arbitrary, but unjust.  Would our Creator, who designed our sense of justice, then reward us for worshipping an apparently unjust God?

Let's take Pascal's reasoning a step further.  What is the most sensible bet a human can make, given the uncertainty of an afterlife?  If we have an emotional need for justice, an unjust God cannot possibly get us to worthwhile life, so that option is out.

1. We can bet on no afterlife and behave so as to get the greatest pleasures available in this life.  (Such behavior may or may not be restricted by a sense of ethics.)
2. We can bet on an afterlife with just rewards and punishments, and behave so as to deserve what we want.

But what are the odds that a just God is out there, given what we have seen of this planet?  Close to zero - unless there is an afterlife in which everyone gets exactly what he deserves.  Only in that case is sufficient justice possible.  Since there is no demonstrably reliable evidence for or against an afterlife, there is absolutely no way to judge those odds.

Therefore, I would assert that an afterlife with just rewards and punishments is a reasonable bet - not because of any compendium of allegedly "holy" scriptures, but largely in spite of them all.  Nevertheless, one necessary precondition of a just community is to have just persons in charge of it.  And strangely enough, most Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe their God to be somehow just and righteous - often despite scriptural evidence to the contrary.  Each of these religions, in fact, holds both a just and an unjust version of its respective God - one who rewards and punishes appropriately, and one who rewards and punishes inappropriately.  Therefore, instead of trying to convert others to our own religion (or lack of it) should we not be trying to convert them to the just version of their own God?

Assuming that we need justice, then if ultimate justice does not exist, life is worth nothing - God or no God.  If ultimate justice does exist, what are the necessary preconditions of it?

1. an afterlife
2. a just being (or group of beings) in charge of it
3. just enforcement throughout it

For those of us who require justice, this is our only chance of worthwhile life, and therefore not only a reasonable bet, but the only reasonable bet.