to a good person just to prove a point to Satan?” Kyle reasons here that if there really were a God, there would be justice in the world. God wouldn't reward someone like Cartman and neither would he allow people like Job and Kyle to suffer.
We can see how all of this applies to Pascal's Wager. Imagine someone who's a really good person – loving, honest, helpful, kind – yet she doesn't believe in God. She thinks she ought to be moral to make the world a better place, let's say, not because God says so or to get some personal reward. Does it really make sense to think that God (who is supposed to be supremely good, remember) would allow such a person to be tormented for all eternity?
A second – and much worse problem for Pascal's argument – is that he assumes that we know the possible outcomes of our wager. Pascal says that God rewards believers and punishes nonbelievers. But this is just an assumption. If we had proof of this, we would already know that the religious view of things is true, and we wouldn't need a prudential argument. Remember, the point of the Wager is to convince us to believe when we have no evidence of God's existence or nonexistence. Without evidence, there are lots of possibilities to consider. Perhaps God rewards everyone, or maybe there's no afterlife at all. Maybe God values reason and punishes those who believe blindly without any evidence. There are endless possibilities.
Even if we could show that only religious believers get rewarded (and how would we prove that without making the Wager pointless?), we still have the problem of which religious beliefs to have. In “Do the Handicapped Go to Hell?” we're treated to a bunch of religious folks who, to their horror, find themselves in hell. They are told that they have the wrong religious beliefs, since only the Mormons go to heaven!
What's the Harm, Dude?
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
– Voltaire
Maybe Pascal's Wager doesn't show us that we should believe in God, but still, we might ask, what's the harm? Perhaps we should only have beliefs based on reasons, but what's wrong with prudential reasons? In “All About Mormons” Gary tells Stan, “Maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense. And maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up. But I have a great life and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don't care if Joseph Smith made it all up.” And in “The Biggest Douche in the Universe” John Edward tries to defend himself to Stan when he says, “What I do doesn't hurt anybody. I give people closure and help them cope with life.” So, echoing Gary, Stan's Mormon friend, we could similarly say we don't care if Edward is a fraud, as long as what he does makes people feel good. Again, what's the harm?
But this is only part of the story. For one, as we've already seen, unsupported beliefs can lead to harmful consequences. In “Timmy 2000,” the belief that Timmy has ADD (that he does not have learning disabilities) eventually causes a wild spread of unnecessary prescription drugs and, worse, a belief that the music of Phil Collins is actually good. In “Super Best Friends” some of the followers of magician David Blaine blindly follow him and commit suicide, believing they will go to heaven. In both of these cases, the believers feel good about their beliefs; they provide hope or comfort. But they're still extremely dangerous.
A second sort of harm here is mental weakness and laziness. As Clifford said, “Every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weaken our powers of self‐control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence.” His point is that even if a person's unsupported belief causes no immediate harm (as in the examples from South Park), it weakens the mind. Stan's dad even gives himself cancer so he can get medicinal marijuana (“Medicinal Fried Chicken”), and like him, we get used to accepting ideas uncritically, growing mentally lazy, and this encourages others to do the same. Just like Randy Marsh, most of the citizens of South Park rarely use their critical faculties. This makes them easy prey for every cult, fad, or con that comes to town. Think of just about any episode of South Park, and you'll find many examples of this mental weakness and laziness.
Inquiry, Hard Work, and Progress
To understand a final reason why uncritically accepting unsupported beliefs – however hopeful they might make us feel – is not such a good thing, we turn to Stan at his best. Again, from “The Biggest Douche in the Universe,” John Edward challenges Stan: “Everything I tell people is positive and gives them hope; how does that make me a douche?” Stan's reply is brilliant: “Because the big questions in life are tough; why are we here, where are we from, where are we going? But if people believe in asshole douchy liars like you, we're never going to find the real answers to those questions. You aren't just lying, you're slowing down the progress of all mankind, you douche.” He follows this up with another terrific speech, this time, to the members of Edward's believing audience:
You see, I learned something today. At first I thought you were all just stupid listening to this douche's advice, but now I understand that you're all here because you're scared. You're scared of death and he offers you some kind of understanding. You all want to believe in it so much, I know you do. You find comfort in the thought that your loved ones are floating around trying to talk to you, but think about it: is that really what you want? To just be floating around after you die having to talk to this asshole? We need to recognize this stuff for what it is: magic tricks. Because whatever is really going on in life and in death is much more amazing than this douche.
We can all learn something today from what Stan has said here. First, he realizes it's wrong to dismiss someone with unsupported beliefs as being stupid. We want answers because we need comfort. Sometimes we rely more on emotion than reason to satisfy ourselves, but that doesn't mean we lack intelligence. We poke fun, we often ridicule; but, even in South Park, it's always better when we try to achieve some understanding.
Second, Stan reminds us of Clifford's point that settling for easy answers not only weakens the mind but also prevents us from finding real answers. In science, philosophy, and every rational pursuit where we require answers to questions, the spirit of inquiry – combined with hard work – is what leads to progress. Settling for magical answers that make us feel good only slows us down.
And speaking of magic, Stan reminds us finally that there's real magic, wonder, and beauty in the universe. As he says, whatever is really going on in life and in death is truly amazing. We don't want to miss it, dude.
For pop culture resources and philosophical resources related to this chapter please visit the website for this book: https://introducingphilosophythroughpopculture.com.
Notes
1 1 See Clifford, W.K. (1999). The Ethics of Belief and Other Essays (ed. T. Madigan ). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books . Epistemology is the area of philosophy concerned with justifying beliefs with evidence. Good introduction to epistemology texts include: Audi, R . (2003). Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction . London: Routledge ; Crumley, J. (1998). Introduction to Epistemology . Columbus, OH: McGraw‐Hill .
2 2 See Pascal, B. (1910). Pascal's Pensées (trans. W.F. Trotter). New York: PF Collier . For interesting discussions of the pros and cons of The Wager, see: Rescher, N. (1985). Pascal's Wager: A Study of Practical Reasoning in Philosophical Theology . Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press ; Hájek, A. (2003). Waging war on Pascal's wager. Philosophical Review 112: 27–56 .
5 Tumbling Down the Rabbit Hole: Knowledge, Reality, and the Pit of Skepticism
Matt Lawrence
Summary
In The Matrix Trilogy, humanity is enslaved,