Stix's Wager.

Discounting solipsism and derivations thereof, we know that Reason (capitalized to denote the noun) is a means by which the human mind acquires and verifies knowledge. This is stated as an axiom due to the overwhelming evidence - the observed demonstrations - both past and present, of the veracity of Reason for acquiring knowledge.

I maintain that Reason is *the* means by which the human mind acquires and verifies knowledge, meaning that Reason is not just a tool, but rather the entire knowledge-acquiring and verifying toolbox; that all knowledge must be, and is, verified *as knowledge* via Reason. Further, without Reason the boundaries between what is real and what is not become indistinct, and beliefs held without Reason are necessarily unverifiable and as such unjustifiable and inherently irrational.

Assuming a god exists, and that he ('he' for the sake of having a pronoun, not intentionally gender-specific) is a perfect, necessary being, and that we are indeed created in his image (the mechanism for which is not important for the sake of the wager), then he must also use Reason, or at the very least (if assuming him omniscient), have given us Reason as our means of acquiring and verifying knowledge.

Would our creator give us such a useful, proven ability if not to use that ability? Would he give us the ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality if we were not to make the distinction? Would beliefs based on faith be so inherently unverifiable if we were supposed to use faith as a basis for belief?

If humans can comprehend that deprecating or discarding Reason is irrational - the antithesis of knowledge - then surely beliefs without Reason, in grating so strongly against the means god gave us to acquire and verify knowledge, must be seen by god as abhorrent. Indeed, that we can acquire knowledge at all is reason to believe we're supposed to acquire knowledge, thus both willful ignorance and faith (belief without Reason) must be an abomination in the eyes of god.

If this is so, then as the existence of god cannot be detected via evidence nor Reason, the only rational conclusion is that if he exists he must have deliberately made himself unable to be detected. If so, it's reasonable to contend he did this for the reason that he doesn't want us to waste time groveling to him nor begging his forgiveness nor begging for his intervention etc, but rather he wants us to work out our own morality and to eradicate the only true sins - oppressive crimes against human individuals (sexism, racism, homophobia, initiatory force et al) - based on our own minds, using our capacity to Reason.

Given a god who wants us to reason, we can argue that the reason why faith carries a built in deprecation of Reason, and why faith and Reason are mutually exclusive, and why belief in god's existence requires the use of faith, and why faithless non-belief receives threats of damnation, is to make faith unpalatable to the truly rational so that god can determine which humans will adhere to Reason; so he can see who will remain rational despite the theistic threats and despite the promise of reward for irrationality.

If this is so, and if the concept of reward or punishment is true, then it's reasonable to contend that discarding or deprecating Reason and holding irrational beliefs on faith would attract that punishment (be it eternal or final), and that adherence to Reason would be rewarded by some means (be it an actual reward or simply being left alone to progress).

If god is the god of Reason and not a god of faith and wrath, then the only explanation for the existence of the holy books which contain various slurs against knowledge, and for which belief is inherently irrational, is that they were either written by men without a single bit of input from god, or planted by god to lure the lazy, faithful, follow-the-leader, defaulters-of-Reason into exposing their propensity for irrationality - their disregard for the very mechanism god provided to allow us the means to understand reality.

Would a god who expects his creation to Reason give eternal free gifts solely for faith? If a god of Reason did indeed have a hand in the bible, is it not likely that the distasteful idea of accepting the sacrifice of an innocent man could be to determine which humans would allow an innocent individual to die for them, and which humans find such disregard for innocence repugnant? Indeed, could the concept of salvation not be designed solely to weed the lazy from the thinkers; to separate those who are moral due to promise of reward or fear of reprisal, from those who are moral for the sake of morality due to Reason, conscience, and empathy?

As our ability to Reason is allowing us further and further advances in understanding the mechanisms of existence itself, in turn leading to our ever increasing quality of life, perhaps god *does* want us to eventually live eternally in utopia.

But if so, would a god of Reason not want *us* to create utopia and immortality via our own understanding and achievements, using our ability to Reason? Does it not stand to reason that he'd want his reasoning creations to succeed all on their own? Is it not reasonable that a species of self-aware, reasoning, autonomous individuals, capable of both unique individuality AND of forming voluntary collectives for the sake of progression; capable of understanding the nature of their own existence and indeed existence itself; gives much greater testimony to god's creative prowess than does a species of babbling sycophants?

If a god exists and is a god of Reason, then would any subordinate groveling to any posited deity, and any adherence to laws for the sake of law rather than for the sake of right (note the test given in the deliberate depiction of biblical atrocities - what reasoning person could worship a butcher of peaceful sentient beings?) not incur any possible wrath, or at least be seen as repugnant in the eyes of god? On the other hand, would atheists and all rational thinkers who adhere to Reason not be spared any possible wrath, and perhaps even rewarded?

If we were made in the image of a god who gave us the ability to Reason, and given that Reason, not faith, brings us knowledge, the most likely god to exist must be a god who prefers us to use Reason. As faith cannot verify information, it is only by Reason that we could possibly determine god's character or motives to within any degree of accuracy. As god's existence remains hidden from Reason, we must conclude that he desires to remain hidden from us, for would a god who demands worship create us dependant on Reason yet hide behind faith? Surely a god who created us to Reason but whose existence remains invisible to Reason does not want to be detected, and as such *cannot* be a god who desires worship, nor a god who wants us to use faith.

Although the existence of a god of Reason seems most likely out of all possible gods, due to the lack of reason to believe in the existence of *any* supernatural entities, and as he remains hidden from Reason, not only is it contrary to Reason to believe he exists, but even if he does exist, he doesn't want us to believe he exists, thus his existence should NOT be believed. If of all the possible gods even the most likely god cannot rationally be believed to exist, then the existence of other less-likely gods must be similarly rejected. Therefore the most sensible, rational choice in the wager is atheism.

To counter Pascal's punishment/reward ante: with a god of Reason, given that it's reasonable to conclude that even if he exists he does not want his existence believed, the possibility of 'reward' for *not* believing is higher than the possibility of reward *for* believing (reverse that for wrath), thus atheism is clearly the safer choice.

In the event of one of the other gods existing: since the odds of selecting the right god of worship are negligible, and since it'd be worse to worship the wrong god than not to worship at all, and considering the sacrifices to Reason one must make to accept faith-based beliefs and the arbitrary nature of faith based beliefs, atheism is the choice that stands to lose the least.

So, by replacing the illogical deprecation of Reason (faith) with the rationally justifiable adherence to Reason, then even if god exists, Stix's Wager shows that atheism wins hands down.

(not only that, but I think god may have just vanished in a puff of Reason)