Pascal's wager reconsidered

There is a common misconception that most religions teach that those who do not follow that religion will go to Hell, or at least have something unpleasant happen to them, like being reborn as a Precious Mao Button in the Region of Thud. I recently saw this in an amusing post to philosophy about Hell freezing over and also in this statement on a Buddhist website: "Most religions teach that they are the one true path to salvation and all those people who chose (or were brought up in) the wrong paths will be judged by the True Religion's Founder and thrown into hell."

People, it's time to relax. Most religions do not, in fact, damn you to Hell simply for believing in a different religion, though they might be picky about the religions they will tolerate. Muslims, for example, are happy to accept Jews and Christians into Heaven, but draw the line at idolaters (much ink - and blood - has been split over the question of whether Hindus are idolaters). Jews are even more tolerant, to the extent that it is actually easier for Gentiles to attain salvation than for Jews (all they have to do is refrain from murder, mutilating live animals and being nasty to Jews). Buddhists have a variety of Hells, rather like the Hell-dimensions of the Buffyverse, but residence is temporary and due to your karma, not the belief-system you subscribe to. In fact, it seems that only Christians hold that followers of other religions are eternally damned, and these days many Christian sects have abandoned this view. The Second Vatican Council proclaimed that Muslims, Jews and even Protestants could get into Heaven, and Anglicans are so good-natured that they are probably at this very moment looking for a theological loophole to allow Satanists the prospect of eternal bliss. On the other hand, the Plymouth Brethren believe that only they are saved, and since there are only a few hundred of them, Heaven looks like being a lonely place.

This should be cause for the theologically indecisive to relax a little. Pascal's wager holds that it makes sense to believe in God, since if the theists are right, not believing could have unpleasant consequents, while if the atheists are right, it doesn't matter whether you believe or not. The counter-argument is that the chances of picking the right God to believe in are slim, and you'll feel like a right Charlie if the Day of Judgement comes and it turns out that only worshippers of some obscure Papuan totem got it right - the Mundugumor tribe go to Heaven and the rest of you are screwed. However, if the majority of religions allow for followers of most other religions to enter Heaven, the prospects look better. Pick the religion that appeals to you (based perhaps on its sexual morality, sacred music or the architecture of its religious buildings), and there is a good chance that even if it turns out to be false, the religion that got it right will allow you into Heaven anyway.

However, this is where Pascal's wager turns nasty. To maximise your chances of bliss, it makes sense to pick the most exclusive religion. Let's say that you decide to join the Plymouth Brethren. This means that if you are wrong and Muslims are right, you can still get into Heaven; in fact, you have a very good chance, since you aren't allowed to indulge in most of the behaviours that would decrease your chances, such as drinking alcohol, and even a few that most religions haven't even thought about, such as watching television. The same goes for Judaism and (since Vatican II) Catholicism. If Hinduism or Buddhism turns out to be correct, you won't do very well, but you'll still be better off than if you'd devoted your life to sensual indulgence. On the other hand, an interest in Neo-paganism would be very risky, since your commitment to ecology and women's rights won't impress the gods of most religions.

This means that Pascal's wager implies that you should opt for the most exclusive, least tolerant belief system. A similar situation exists in social choices. For example, it is now acceptable in Western societies for men to have long hair; you may get dirty looks from retired army officers, but most people are not interested in your hairstyle. However, this was not the case thirty years ago, nor is it true in many non-Western societies. Pascal's wager would dictate that you should cut you hair short just to be on the safe side, since long-haired men do not beat up short-haired men, but short-haired men might apply baseball bats to hippies (remember Easy Rider?). It makes sense to be a conservative, because (outside the campuses of liberal universities) liberals are more tolerant of conservatives than conservatives are of liberals. The long-term result of Pascal's wager is that the bigots win.