by Ninelong
Gambling's fun, especially when you win. But then again, most Christians say that gambling is bad.
Alright, it's bad.
But it's fun.
Now, gambling with money is fine, so long as one can sustain the possible losses and rationally deduce the probability of winning based on the cards that has been dealt to the player. Some of you, however, choose to gamble not only with money, but with belief in a god. Now, is that really rational?
Blaise Pascal seemed to think so. He thought that it was so, so, xoxo rational, he even constructed a logical argument for belief in God! Most of you know this as Pascal's Wager, and still more of you think that the argument is cogent.
The aforementioned argument, as stated above, is Pascal's attempt to apply the power of decision to a belief in God. Aimed at lay persons who are not swayed by the traditional arguments for God, it uses fear as a motivational drive for belief. Pascal then argues that "betting" on God's existence will always yield a greater reward value than betting on the non-existence of God. It is helpful to note that this argument, unlike the Ontological, Cosmological, and Teleological arguments is not an argument for the existence of God; rather, it is an argument for belief in God.
An outline of the argument is as follows -
* You live as though God exists.
1. If God exists, you go to heaven; your gain is infinite.
2. If God does not exist, you gain nothing and lose nothing.
* You live as though God does not exist.
1. If God exists, you go to hell; your loss is infinite.
2. If God does not exist, you gain nothing and lose nothing.
Although that is is at face value both rational and appealing, it, in reality, is far from it. Allow me to demonstrate.
First and foremost, it is a product of the fallacy of the False Dilemma. The argument lists its possibilities as either the Christian god exists, or there is no god. Obviously, this dichotomy is false, since there are infinitely many different and possible gods to choose from. Therefore, the argument also begs the question, insofar as it ignores the possibility of the existence of other gods while assuming that the Christian god is the only god that can exist.
It also assumes that mere empty belief is rewarded. Again, only the Christian god is the entertained possibility - it fails to take into account the possibility of an evil god, or perhaps a logic-Nazi god who rewards those who disbelieve in him through logical and rational bases.
What of other religions, then? If I accept Pascal's Wager, which god should I choose to believe in? If I choose to believe YWHW, Allah would then threaten me with his version of an undesirable afterlife, so I must believe in Islam as well. The Greek gods would then be furious at my disbelief, threatening me with Hades' realm. I must then believe in the Greek gods. The Hindu deities would then be displeased, and since I am faced with yet another afterlife, I must believe in Hinduism, by Pascal's Wager. In reality, every religion with an undesirable afterlife would have to be believed in.
All the above religions, however, have contradicting definitions, doctrines, and practices. How, then, does one reconcile them? One cannot. The Wager is then shown to be illogical by virtue of reductio ad absurdum.
Another interesting criticism here would be that the Wager actually ignores the benefits and losses while one is still alive. What of one's time, money, activities, and whatnot that one spends worshiping a deity? If one is lucky enough to have chosen the correct religion and the denomination, then it is all good. That, however, is most improbable - if one is incorrect, all is wasted. The resources could have been put to a more beneficial pursuit, such as funding a hospital instead of a church.
If one accepts this argument as a basis of one's belief, then that would be heretical by most religions to date; what religion allows entry into a heaven to a person who merely gambled correctly? This is not what most would call "true belief;" it is merely an insurance bet. "I'm going all in," so to speak.
As a final point of inquiry, can one actually choose to believe in anything at all? In order to "believe," in the strictest and most sincere sense of the word, one would need to have evidence and support; one would have to know it to be true, insofar as personal experience is to be trusted. Evidence, no matter how crappy, is the determining factor for both belief and disbelief in any x. If it weren't, then belief would be arbitrary, and we would see people switching religions and beliefs everyday.
All in all, the argument can be summarized by the fallacy of the appeal to force, since it is only a euphemism for "Believe in my god or burn in my hell."
Not the most appealing argument for belief, I must say.
The author is a regular writer for Articleated.com
Article Source: Articleated.com
