Periodically, I revert to the better self I was in my youth, and, for a time, I am once again a Militant and Fanatical Discordian Zealot.  And, like any good MFDZ, I dearly love to engage is a bit of Eristic.

For reasons perhaps having to do with Eris Herself, I have encountered references to Pascal's Wager twice within the past 24 hours.  This annoys me, for the very logical reason that Pascal's Wager is annoying.  What is most annoying about it is that it is a transparently vacuous argument, usable only for rhetorical purposes, which, nonetheless, is wildly popular, and cited as a real humdinger of an argument by people who really ought to know better - for example, anyone.

In brief, it runs (roughly) as follows:  One ought to believe in God, because, (1) if God exists, belief will yield infinite reward, and disbelief, infinite punishment, and (2) if God doesn't exist, only minimal (and certainly only finite) gains or losses result from belief or disbelief.  A simple cost-benefit analysis, no?

No.

In Pascal's context - Christianity badly understood - many assumptions of this argument were perhaps easily overlooked.   Let's draw them out.

Right-thinking Discordians take as an article of faith the Hell Rule:
Hell is reserved for those who believe in it, and all of them go there.  The worst part of Hell is reserved for those who believed in Hell in order to avoid being sent there.

This is quite just, because, after all, what kind of monster would accept as moral the notion that all those creatures who fail to live properly will be deliberately tormented forever?   Who would attribute that character to God?  If God is like that, let me say for the record:

Dear Mean God,
Suck shit out of my asshole forever.
Love,
Me
PS:  You can send me to Hell for this, but I'm still better than you.
PPS:  Oh, and as soon as someone explains to me how to commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, I am so there.

You don't have to accept my line of reasoning; you simply have to acknowledge the Hell Rule as one of the many possible propositions in which we might choose to place faith - i.e., voluntary belief.  Since the Hell Rule posits the existence of Hell, but only sends selected, extremely cruel people there, one must assume that the afterlife of the other dead is infinite bliss, because that would be nice.  Well call this the Amplified Hell Rule.   Let's apply Pascal's Wager to this, then, shall we?

One ought not to believe in the sort of God Pascal favors, because, (1) if the Amplified Hell Rule is true, belief will yield infinite punishment, and disbelief, the admittedly finite reward of being a better person, followed by a (possibly unexpected) infinite reward, and (2) if the Amplified Hell Rule isn't true, there are of course, an uncountable array of other alternatives, (aren't there?) each of them with its own Schedule of Reward and Comeuppance. 

Oh, fine, then - and (3) if the Amplified Hell Rule is false, and Pascal's Mean God is real, belief will yield infinite reward, and disbelief, infinite punishment.

A straight comparison of (1) and (3) shows that, applying the Principle of Indifference (when probabilities cannot be assigned, all cases receive equal weight), there is no net payoff from either choice. save for being a better person if you reject Mean God.  Eris wins!

A simple cost-benefit analysis, no?

Not that any person of substance chooses their course of action based on rewards or punishments...  Right?

(Some thanks due to Richard Dawkins for stimulating this line of thought.)