Problems With Pascal

There is an old philosophical argument for belief in God, formulated by mathematician and theologian Blaise Pascal, called Pascal's wager. It has been doing the philosophical rounds for years, partly because it is a very original argument. Instead of trying to convince us that religion is true, it tries to convince that religion is a worthwhile thing to do. It's emphasis is on the utility of religion, not the truth.

Pascal's argument begins on the very uncontroversial premise that we do not know, without doubt, whether God exists or not. Therefore, we must choose between belief and non-belief because we do not know for certain. As Pascal says:

'You must wager. It is not optional. Which will you choose then? Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all, if you lose, you lose nothing.'

Pascal acknowledges this is an odd reason to believe, but with foresight, responds to his critics that God will know the difference between an opportunistic and a true believer. His response is that committed opportunists eventually condition themselves into true belief.

'Follow the way they began, by acting as if they believe, taking the holy water, having more masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe and deaden acuteness.'

His argument can be summarised as followed. Once you have converted yourself, you will reap all the rewards of belief, provided you are right; an afterlife in Heaven in eternal pleasure etc. If you are wrong, you lose nothing but what Pascal dismisses as parasitic pleasures, like the television you watch on sunday morning. On the other hand, if you don't believe, and you are wrong, you are sentenced to eternal damnation in the fiery pits of hell. In short, it's safer to believe than not to believe. You might as well just believe.

However, Pacal's argument only takes into account private utility; private advantages and disadvantages. In doing so, he makes a fatal error; treating religion as a private personal thing rather than an institution across society. In order to truly assess the wager, we need to take into account the societal advantages of disbelief and the disadvantages of belief.

For example, dissenting thought from religion, and not believing, has brought huge gains to society. Ideas from thinkers such as Frederick Nietzche and Karl Marx were the result of dissenting from religion. The questioning of religious doctrine has brought us many scientific ideas, such as evolution. While the personal benefits of disbelief may be negligible, the societal gains can be significant. Therefore Pascal's wager becomes much less of a one-sided no brainer, and more of a value judgement.  A judgement where somebody decides which is more important, their prospects, or society's prospects. Am I willing to risk eternal damnation instead of eternal bliss, for these advantages to society?

Religion also has negative effects that we can take into account. I don't mean to argue that religion is bad, just some aspects of it are. Religion does have good effects on society, but for brevity I shall play devil's advocate in response to Pascal's one sided gambit, and ignore these. One need only look at the endless wars, murders and morally abhorrent things committed in the name of religion to see the negative effects it can have on society. Religion could provide eternal bliss for believers, but if this belief causes people to act badly, the disadvantages to future generations and living conditions could outweigh these individual benefits.

Pascal's view of religion as it effects the individual is too narrow for the wager to be accurate. Religion has many effects on society and future generations, which should also be taken into account. However, once you do this, it becomes less one-sided.

There is another problem with Pascal's narrow view in that it does not account for the occurrence of many different religions in society, each with their own version of god. You either have to know which god is correct, in which case the wager is invalid because it is about acting in the face of uncertainty, or you have to guess which god is correct. In this instance, the wager loses it's effectiveness because your risk of going to hell, even if you believe in a god, increases. You're more likely to pick the wrong god, if any of the religions have got it right. There is an episode of the Simpsons where Homer Simpson, of all people, elegantly expresses this sentiment:

"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church, we're just making him madder and madder!"

If even Homer Simpson can point out flaws, Pascal has a problem.

Captioned Art and Art itself.

In major galleries, next to the artwork itself, there will almost always be a small caption explaining it. To clarify, I do not object to captions that state technical information such as the materials used or the date it was made. My worries concern the captions that interpret the art for you, explaining the themes and ideas contained within it. My worry is also that those captions are but one symptom of a central problem. A tendency for people to accept arbitrary decisions about what art is and what "good" art is. Captions are just a small and seemingly inoffensive part of this issue, and useful for illustrating the point.

In my opinion, the captions stifle free thought. Art is a subjective thing, and often many different interpretations can be gleaned from the artwork, and by many different people. However, by putting one interpretation on paper and in an official setting, it is raised above the rest. The unfortunate result of this is that the art may be hardly discussed outside the parameters set by the caption. People may even read the caption before the art and then look at the art with pre-conceived ideas, searching for how the art confirms the placard, rather than looking with an open mind.

I, personally, also object to captions because they enable what I would call "bad" art. While this not my only criteria for judging art, I believe that a lack of clarity is a "bad" property for expressive artwork to possess. If the artist wishes to convey an idea with little room for interpretation, they should do it in the art, not in the caption. If the artist are not skilful enough to convey their message in the art, perhaps they should tackle easier themes, or be content with producing what I would call "bad" art.

If the artist wishes to create artwork that leads to different interpretations and debate then captions can defeat this purpose, as they glorify one interpretation over the rest. If the artist wishes to express an idea through the medium of art, with little room for interpretation, then they should use clear art, not concise captions. Finally, if the artist is producing art for themselves, it follows they do not need a caption to explain it to themselves. If artwork is an attempt to fulfil any of these three major functions, captions are redundant or harmful.

Why then, do we have captions?

I believe it is because there is a lack of confidence about art. People do not know the right answer when it comes to art. This is because there isn't one; art is subjective. The problem is that captions imply there is a "correct" interpretation.

However, captions are not the only thing that treat art as something prescribed. I believe it is a problem systematic in the way art has been traditionally presented.

We live in a world filled with professional art critics making arbitrary judgements. As a result, people simply accept the word of those "better informed" and accept they just don't understand "good art." As a result, artists nowadays are allowed to put mundane objects such as an unmade bed into art exhibitions. These objects, which are completely innocuous if you ignore the gallery setting, have been accepted as "good" art by the majority, because the art intelligentsia and art critics have put it into a gallery. The majority do not necessarily understand the art, but accept it as "good" art because it is in an exhibition.

This definition of "good" art is clearly absurd. I think there is a better one, so at risk of repeating the same tedious arguments, I ask the question.

Question: What is art?

Answer: Whatevert you fucking want it to be.

Whatever you feel is art, is art to you. I don't want to ban galleries or placards, but they highlight an ugly arbitrary streak in the beautiful world of art. "Good" art is not just in galleries and decided by hidden arbitrary people. You can decide what is good art for you, and what is not. You can decide why you feel something is art, and why it is not. This has never been easier. The Internet offers a huge variety of images at the touch of a screen, ready to explore. If you see a crooked lamppost swaying in the breeze and feel it is artistic enough, it can be art to you. Other people may think it mundane and ugly, and so it won't be art to them. This isn't hiding behind subjectivity. There is still the same room for discussion if this philosophy is adopted. Absolute statements like "This is good art because..." or "This is art because..." simply change into "This is art, to me, because...." We change from debating absolutes to discussing feelings.

Art is whatever you want it to be.

However, art is also subjective, so feel free to disagree.