For those who don't already know, Pascal's wager is an argument offered by Blaise Pascal (a 17th century French mathematician and theologian) in favor of a belief in God. Pascal argues that if God does exist and one doesn't believe, one will be cast into hell for eternity, whereas if God doesn't exist and one does believe, at worst one will lose a brief moment of existence. Thus, argues Pascal, it would seem to be the most prudent choice to believe. This, of course, glosses over such obvious questions, as, for example, how sincere can belief be when it is obtained out of the fear of a possible threat (and not conviction) or what manner of being would value a belief that is not heartfelt? For that matter, were that brief moment of existence all that we had, should its loss seem such a small matter to us? A small loss is a great loss to one who has very little, as one who has ever been poor knows from painful experience.

This argument, for all of its weaknesses, has long outlived the memory of its maker in popular culture and occasionally resurfaces in a new form. Those who have professed a Pagan faith have, of late, often been asked if they aren't afraid that they're going to go to Hell for doing so, and if they don't feel that in serving a god, other than the one that the speaker regards as being the only true God, that they will really be serving the devil. This, when the speaker hasn't been so crude as to simply come out, and assert that one's group is simply a cover for devil worship, an unjustified accusation that has also been lodged against Roman Catholics and Jews, among others, with the same stubborn indifference to the facts of the matter. I find myself wondering if some of those speaking truly believe in their own scriptures, for is it not written

(Deuteronomy 5:17, final sentence). Can they profess a belief in the authority of their own scriptures and then defiantly refuse to obey its commands? Perhaps they might note that there is no exemption given in that commandment, taken from their own holy text, for dealing with those one disapproves of, no matter what the reason for that disapproval is.

In that vein, let us now answer some of the questions of a fundamentalist Christian who might be unclear on the distinction between a Pagan (of the persuasion of which we speak) and a devil worshipper. I would maintain that the fears that he would attempt to arouse are not reasonable ones. Now, in order to show that a position is an unreasonable one, one does not begin with an assumption of one's own beliefs, and then note how they conflict with the position in question. That's not critical analysis, that's arrogant dogmatism. Rather, let us suppose that some of the tenets of his faith were granted - namely the goodness and glory of God, Himself, and His omnipotence. Given the latter, we can easily see that God would be in no way dependent on Human worship for His strength. Starting with these thoughts in mind, we soon see that much of the fundamentalist commentary about the consequences of Pagan worship, for the worshipper, become unreasonable, if not absolutely blasphemous. Their position, taken as a unified whole, is riddled with inconsistency, and thus some portion of it must be invalid.

So, the question is this: to which will they cling with more conviction, the belief in the truth of their faith, or their intolerance toward those who would in absolute sincerity decline to share in their religion? For they can not have both, and to choose the latter would be to demand that others share in a belief that they themselves do not truly believe in - to embrace hypocrisy, a trait which their Lord has never praised.

Click here to continue