(Un)Justifiable Cruelty

Like many people of Russian descent, I suffer from the occasional temper.  Today I had a brush with my own dark side.  At work I lost my temper on a biller who had been making mistakes in her billing files.  After I calmed down, I wrote an email apologizing, and then I spoke to the liaison for the biller’s company.  I felt better after speaking to the liaison, who agreed with my concern, but as I hung up the phone I realized just how easy it is to transform into a monster.

Robots Lack Emotions & care not for people's feelings.

The monstrous thing is not that I lost my temper.  While losing my temper is hardly a good thing, the real frightening thing is how we as a society justify being rude, mean, or downright cruel to others.  Yelling at the biller accomplished nothing, and it certainly made her job all the more stressful.  The liaison helped remedy the situation, but in the end left me with a small feeling of vindication.  The problem is, it’s irrelevant whether we’re correct or incorrect; being “right” does not give us Carte Blanche to hurt other peoples’ feelings.

We live in a winning-obsessed culture.  Not only do we love being right and hate being wrong, but we believe that if we are factually correct that means we are in the right.  The internet has always been the playground where our argumentative nature comes out to play.  Facebook, in particular, has dragged out the worst in many of us.  I use Facebook as the example because unlike debating politics on a forum where your opponent is a stranger, on Facebook people debate politics with their friends, family, coworkers, and classmates. 

We get so caught up in proving our message that we forget the subtext and the impact on our relationship with others.  Unfortunately an argument may prove a point while being demeaning to others.  You may “win” an argument while successfully belittling someone you otherwise love and care about.  In this phenomenon our opinions become more important to us than people.  It’s not to say that our ideology lacks merit, or isn’t standing for the right thing, but our presentation of our ideology is harmful and disrespectful to others.

Differences of ideology are nothing new, but when we are not standing face to face with the people we break down with debate we forget their humanity.  We cannot always prevent others from taking offense.  Even words without an intent to harm can still be hurtful, but we must have the wisdom to recognize when we are in the wrong even if our facts or our ideology is correct.  Tone matters, as does the method by which we deliver our message.  We must have the courage to admit when we are in the wrong.  When we feel vindicated at hurting the feelings of someone around us because we were “right” then we become monsters.  We like to believe that evil is found in large actions, but frequently it is the small ways in which we try to justify cruelty that we create evil in the world.  

Revisiting Pascal’s Wager and Changing the Bet

Revisiting Pascal’s Wager and Changing the Bet

I’ve always been a fan of Pascal’s Wager; it is an elegant explanation of the value of faith.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with Pascal’s Wager, it is philosophical argument made by Blaise Pascal (yes, the triangle guy).  To oversimplify the argument, it states that we bet on whether or not God exists.  If we bet that God does not exist, and he does not, we gain nothing; we simply die.  If we bet God exists, and he does not, there is nothing to lose as we meet the same fate (Death).  If we bet that God exists, and he does, there is everything to gain (i.e. eternal salvation and heaven).  If we bet that God does not exist, and he does, then there is everything to lose (i.e. eternal damnation). 

Naturally, Pascal’s Wager is rooted in Christianity, particularly the classic school of Christianity. 

There are a few flaws in this base concept:

1. It does not provide for an outcome in which there is an afterlife and/or deity other than the Christian God.

2. The premise of eternal salvation is solely contingent on a basis of believe vs. do not believe. 

3. The Wager places Heaven as the reward for belief in God.  The Wager presents that without an afterlife, nothing is gained or lost.

It would be impossible to discuss #2 in a blog; that is subject matter worthy of a doctoral thesis. 

I would like to revisit Pascal’s Wager and change the bet, mainly to address flaw # 3 and to (some degree) account for the limitations described in #1.

The simplicity of Pascal’s Wager is elegant, but it ignores another item that is at stake.  There are two certainties: you are living, and you will someday die. There is no factual guarantee of heaven, let alone the afterlife.  What is certain is that you are living a life now. 

Proposed Revision of Pascal’s Wager:

Non-Belief:

1.       If you do not believe in a god/higher power, and a god/higher power does not exist, you will die. 

a.       You will not be able to find intellectual satisfaction in being right – you won’t exist.

b.      You stand to gain a few earthly pleasures as a result of possessing fewer inhibitions if unrestricted by a secular moral code.  The earthly pleasures may have been enjoyable, but may have also brought about worldly repercussions that have nothing to do with a higher power.

2.       If you do not believe in a god, and a higher power does exist, you will die and the afterlife will be contingent on whatever truth exists.

a.       While (contingent on the universal powers) you may not be punished for non-belief, there is no cosmic benefit to non-belief.

b.      There could be that awkward revelation in the afterlife that you were wrong.

c.       There may be repercussions in the afterlife for choices made during life when under the assumption that there is no god.

Belief:

1.       If you believe in a god/higher power, and a god/higher power does not exist, you will die.

a.       You were wrong, but you won’t be conscious to feel the stab at your pride, you won’t exist.

b.      Before dying, your life would have been influenced by your beliefs in a higher power and the afterlife.  Your beliefs may have brought you hope and comfort in time of despair.  Your beliefs would have impacted the choices you made in life.

2.       If you believe in a god/higher power, and a god/higher power does exist, you will die.

a.       Your journey to an afterlife would depend on what afterlives exist, which deity, cosmic rules, etc.  It could still end badly, but if you pleased the higher power that exists, the afterlife may include eternal salvation.  In many belief systems, faith is important to obtaining a favorable afterlife.

b.      You will be right, and you may have the knowledge that you bet correctly.

c.       Your faith would have enriched your life.

The afterlife isn’t the only thing you have to win or lose.  While the afterlife is the uncertainty, what is certain is that you are alive now.  Belief in a higher power is a comforting thing.  A life led in faith is not worthless if there’s no god.  If there is no afterlife, no higher power, when you die you won’t care.  Sure, uninhibited by religion you might eat, drink, and fornicate into a blissful stupor, surrounded by material possessions, but when you die none of those things really matter. 

When we revisit Pascal’s Wager we not only bet against whether or not there is a God.  We make a bet whether or not our spiritual beliefs enrich our lives. 

When we, humanity that is, are staring death in the face our thoughts go to the people we loved.  We ask for our family, our friends, and our lovers to our side in those final moments.  How often do you hear about someone summoning their stock broker to their deathbed?  Most world religions have a lot of rules, but those rules tend to be there to get our priorities straight.

If there is no god and you are unrestricted by a religious code, you will still be bound be earthly repercussions even if there is no afterlife.  If you commit adultery, divorce is still a repercussion, as is contracting an STD.  If you embezzle from your company you could be fired or convicted.  If you use profanity… well you might not get invited to as many dinner parties.  The penalties for immoral behavior are not solely found in an afterlife or dispensed by a higher power. 

If there is no god and you adhere to the moral tenets of your religious beliefs, there are benefits that apply to this mortal existence.  When you help others you are influencing the world around you, bringing about positive changes.  You can take control of your current existence and make the world a better place, if only a little.  While there are some who would take advantage of your kindness, being a loving person will draw true and meaningful friendships to your life.  If your code of morality leaves you feeling accomplished, spiritually nourished, and happy, that is a reward onto itself.   You will have built something beautiful with your fleeting mortal existence.

Since there are ample codes of secular morality, the benefit of honest living isn’t exclusive to persons of faith.  However, faith is a benefit onto itself. 

If you believe in a higher power that belief can bring comfort to you in times of hardship.  Life is hard.  There will be loss, there will be pain, and there will be suffering.  When we are powerless we take consolation in the power of prayer.  The belief in a higher power carries with it the power of hope.  If there is no god, but you believe in god, that belief can guide you through your darkest moment and give you the strength to carry on.  If the belief in a higher power can help you find the strength to put down the bottle when you’re on the verge of falling off the wagon, then that belief is critical in your life.  If the belief in a higher power can provide hope and remove your finger from the trigger at the precipice of suicide, then that belief has saved your life.  Belief is comfort in the moment of unfathomable despair; it is the catalyst to positive change when the personal journey is hard.  What is gained from faith is immeasurable. 

God exists in these moments.