Pascal's Wager and Volitional Belief

It's a bit unusual for me to blog about something like this, but why the hell not?

Pascal's Wager is sometimes called a proof of God's existence, but that's not really what it presents itself as. It's more of a thought experiment, and it goes a little something like this, in my own words:

Maybe we can't prove that God exists. But even so, it's better to believe in him just in case. There are four possible scenarios:

	you believe	you disbelieve
God exists	REWARD	PUNISHMENT
God does not exist	null	null

Obviously, then, believing in God is the right choice. It rules out the possibility of a negative outcome, leaving only positive and neutral.

There are problems with this thought experiment (or whatever we want to call it). They are obvious and they are not very interesting. Note the either-or proposition of God's existence, which does not allow for the fact that the god (or gods!) that exist might not be the one you believe in. And then there's the assumption that God rewards belief and punishes disbelief (which is kind of a silly thing to assume).

And then, of course, there's the fact that it's not a logical proof for God's existence, just a recommendation that you hedge your bets and choose to believe.

Again, not that interesting, and kind of obvious.

The interesting thing, in my opinion, is the notion that you can choose to believe in God. Can you choose to believe in anything? Because I sure can't. I believe those things that seem true to me and I do not believe those things which seem untrue to me. I can't just choose to believe that the sun will not rise tomorrow. Nor can I choose to believe that God does or does not exist.

Now, there's a pretty neat trick that human beings do called "lying to ourselves." You know what I'm talking about. You've done it before, and you've frustrated your loved ones. And you've been frustrated when your loved ones did it. The way this works is not so much by choosing to believe things, but rather choosing to alter our on mental filters. You can choose to ignore certain information, which has a bearing on a particular belief. In that way, you can trick yourself into "believing" whatever you want. It's called intellectual dishonesty.

By doing this, someone who really, deep down in their gut, believes in the existence of God, can trick themselves into believing that God does not exist, and vice versa. But I'm really not so much interested in the big question of God's existence as I am in the relationship between belief and the will.

I suppose I don't really have much of a point other than to muse on the issue. So I'll just sort of trail off here.

Decemberists at Newport and thoughts on The Hazards of Love

Music reviewing isn't really my usual thing, but I've got something to say, dammit, and say it I shall.

Last weekend was the Newport Folk Festival, which was celebrating its 50th year and featured a whole lot of good bands. I went with my sister and one of her friends, mainly to see the Decemberists, a favorite band of mine. If you're not familiar with the Decemberists, they're a folk rock band from Oregon that's heavily influenced by the tradition of English folk. A lot of their songs are stories about characters, and feature a verbose and anachronistic lyrical style that forms a large part of the band's charm.

One of the most prevalent themes in their music is tragic love. For examples, give a listen to "We Both Go Down Together," a song about a suicide pact between lovers, or "O Valencia!" which is a fairly standard Romeo and Juliet tale.

Incidentally, both of those songs were performed at the Newport Folk Festival, along with two all-new, never-before-performed-in-the-US songs, and a few songs from their new album The Hazards of Love, which is an album-length folk rock opera.

I had been a little worried that their entire set would be from The Hazards of Love, since their recent tour has featured a set list composed of just the tracks from that album in order, telling the complete story. I hadn't heard that album yet, and so a concert with all those songs and none of my favorites would have left me cold. But after hearing the songs performed at the concert, I immediately purchased the album from iTunes when I got home, so impressed was I with what I heard.

Now, I must admit that initially I was a little underwhelmed by the album on first listen, because while the songs were good, they did not benefit from the energy of the live show, and so I did not immediately fall in love wit the album. But on repeat listens, I have appreciated the album a lot more, and I've grown obsessed enough with it that I'm literally having trouble listening to anything else.

The Hazards of Love follows a trend in the work of singer/songwriter/frontman Colin Meloy toward long, epic song suites based in folk legend tropes. The 18-minute single The Tain in 2004 was one step in this direction, and the 2006 album The Crane Wife featured two such epic songs, "The Island" and the three parts of "The Crane Wife." The Hazards of Love seems the natural progression from those earlier works. By no means is it a particularly complicated (or even very specific) story, but it is touching in its own tragic way, and getting a sense of the narrative is absolutely key to the enjoyment of the album.

The story follows four characters. The lovers, Margaret and William, meet when Margaret helps a wounded fawn, which turns into a man by night: William. Margaret becomes pregnant with William's baby, which leads her to run away from home and also causes a disagreement between William and his mother the forest Queen. Soon after, the villainous Rake kidnaps Margaret and William must rescue her. I mentioned it was a tragedy, and I assure you it doesn't end well. The music incorporates a mix of folk and prog rock styles, and a few different vocalists, with Meloy playing both men and guest vocalists Becky Stark and Shara Worden portraying Margaret and the Queen respectively.

The long story, which requires some attention to follow, is probably why I didn't enjoy the album so much on my first listen, and it improved on later listens. I think this may be the most impressive album to date, but I don't think I want to see another one like it. I hope that Meloy returns to the shorter, lighter songs that made me fall in love with the band in the first place. If the songs the band played at Newport are any indication, that's just what they're doing, thankfully.

Oh, and by the way, some kind soul has uploaded the two brand new songs to youtube, so give them a listen: "Down by the Water" and "Rox in the Box". I'm a fan. Also, during the middle of their set, specifically during A Cautionary Song, most of the band came out into the audience to give a humorous reenactment of Bob Dylan's infamous 1965 performance at Newport. Luckily, that's up on youtube as well. I couldn't see it from my spot in the crowd but as they came out into the crowd they did walk literally right in front of me (just inches away, really) so that was kind of cool.

If you're a fan of the Decemberists highly recommend that you give The Hazards of Love a listen, or even a few listens. If you've nto familiar with them, however, then I'd recommend that you listen to some of their other, less ambitious, more accessible material. Personally, while I'm glad that the band didn't perform The Hazards of Love in its entirety at Newport, I'd be curious to hear it performed live, just to find out what the experience is like.

Oh, and sadly, I left the festival early and so I missed the big finale where a bunch of people (including Meloy and Ben Kweller and others) joined Pete Seeger on stage for This Land is Your Land. Ah well. I'll probably lie and tell my grandkids I was there.