Section Three: Reason and religion as conflicting memes.
A preliminary question to ask is whether or not reason itself is a meme. Rather than argue the case that reason is a meme, let us, for the sake of argument, suppose that it is. And suppose that the fundamental axiom of reason, consistency, comes into direct conflict with the above religious sub-memes. Would reason win most of the battles? Given Pascal's argument and its underground incorporation of the sub-memes, consistency doesn't have a chance. Let me explain.
A. How the "veil of ignorance" works.
Pascal's argument persuades us that it is acceptable to have and act upon a completely contingent belief, here a belief (God exists) about which the truth or falsity can never be known. In other words, although the proposition "God exists" cannot be proven to be true, it is not unacceptable to have and act upon the belief that "God exists." We can be justified in believing in God while at the same time entertaining the proposition, "Either god exists or He does not exist," to be perpetually true. As a tautology, the proposition is certainly true. In the wager, it is eternally an irresolvable disjunct. But, Pascal's wager allows one alternative to be affirmed even while the disjunction is maintained. A person who would make such a claim would state something like the following: "I believe it to be true that 'God exists' (I believe in God) and I also believe it to be perpetually true that 'Either God exists or God does not exist.'" The latter belief is incompatible with the former, for the alternative "God does not exist" is not really considered to be a viable alternative, for the veil of ignorance forever suspends judgment on the truth value of "God does not exist" while allowing the possibility of having justification for affirming "God exists."
How does Pascal get away with this? Here, we may say that the sub-memes "God is beyond knowledge," and "Things will get better sooner or later," combine to meet a challenge raised by a competing meme, reason with its "razor," consistency. The first sub-meme establishes an envelope or veil of ignorance around the alternatives so that the parameters of choice become mystified; one may choose between the beliefs, "God exists," and "God does not exist" on grounds external to the conditions which would apply to any determination of the truth value of the existence of God. How? Because God's existence is beyond knowledge, there are no ultimate grounds for determining rationally that either "God exists" or that "God does not exist'' is true. We are left with a perpetually true tautology. In casting this envelope or veil of ignorance, we are forced to rationally give up saying anything about the existence of God; nothing can be demonstrated about God's existence which would persuade us one way or another that He exists or does not. But this seeming problem does not entail that we cannot know enough about God or conditions related to holding a belief in Him to have justifications for a choice to have the belief that He exists.
By utilizing the veil of ignorance with respect to God's existence, Pascal skirts the problem of many gods and allows external conditions to be set up to justify a belief in God, to justify one's having a belief that the Christian God exists. As we know, there are but two options to choose from: God or no God. We cannot decide based upon a knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God; the veil of ignorance has made that clear. So, the decision to believe in God rests on determining what are the outcomes of a choice to have a belief in God. Given a knowledge of a world which would correspond to acting on a belief that God exists, the important question to answer is, what goods will accrue or disappear if God is chosen or not chosen in light of the way we conceive of Him?
Again, to make his wager argument work for the skeptic, Pascal must employ this veil of ignorance. He must say that both alternatives are equally incapable of being proved. It is not the existence of God that is now the important matter of the wager argument; it is the payoffs that will lead us to choose one way or another, one God and lifestyle with its rewards now and later over no God and a different lifestyle with its hazards and total emptiness --so says Pascal. It is easy to see from these Pascalian options which way a person will be inclined to choose. But, let us be detailed in our inquiry.
Take me to the Next Part
Take me to the table of contents
Get your own Free Home Page