While conversing with a Christian today I was offered this gem that is often used as a last resort:
“...When I die, if I am wrong about my God, I have nothing to lose. When you die and if you are wrong about there not being a God, you have everything to lose."
My response: What if you are wrong about the particular god you worship? What if there is in fact a god but his name is Allah and you get tortured in Muslim hell? Or what if there is a god but She doesn’t care for religious types and rewards only atheists with heavenly bliss?
If there is no god — no afterlife — it means the christian has spent their one and only life living a grand delusion. They have spent precious time and resources on believing and perpetuating a falsehood — a big fat juicy lie. Now that seems to me to be quite a loss indeed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Pascal's Wager is an existential argument for the existence of God, and generally people try to refute it with ontological, teleological, or epistemological arguments.
Also, the statement doesn't specifically define which God. It's an argument for why you should believe in a God, not why you should believe in the Christian God. If you decide to believe in a god - any god - there are other arguments which can take it from there!
Pascal’s wager isn’t an argument for the ”existence” of a god but an argument for “why” one should bet or believe there is one. It is a poor argument as my points show.
Oops! I typed that too fast! You're right, it isn't for the existence of God but rather why one should believe in a god. However, it's still an existential argument and you have to combat it as such (which is hard to do!)
What about the second part of my original comment? :)
I think the second part of your argument is good. Again, I think it is a poor argument by itself and actually talked about it on the blog before:
“Pascal’s Wager” says it’s best to bet that a God exists for the believer gains everything if right and loses nothing if wrong, whereas an atheist gains nothing if right and loses everything if wrong. Following are a few reasons why this is typical poor Christian reasoning.
1. If a non-Christian God exists, a Christian is no better off than an atheist.
2. If the Christian God exists, He would know the difference between belief and betting, and without true belief hell awaits the so called “Christian.” The atheist can accept hell gladly if it means separation from a deity diabolical enough to create one.
3. If no God exists, it means the Christian lived with unwarranted guilt and fear while wasting time and money supporting a delusion whereas the atheist didn’t.
To the first point: again, Christians do not expect an atheist to look at Pascal's Wager and immediately become a Christian. The point is to argue why it is better to believe in a god, and then there are other arguments to point out why it is best to believe in the Christian God.
To the second point: Again, if an atheist comes to the conclusion that it is best to believe in a god, and then they are presented with the arguments for all the gods and choose the Christian God, then they probably have some belief in him by that point.
To the third point: If no God exists, then after death no one has any awareness anyway, and so what does it matter if they wasted their life?
I just find the whole idea of Pascal’s Wager distasteful. The idea that whether or not you really believe there is a god it is best to go ahead and believe than not believe is abhorrent to me. One should believe things based on evidence not out of fear that bad things might happen if I don’t.
You say, “To the third point: If no God exists, then after death no one has any awareness anyway, and so what does it matter if they wasted their life?”
You are right in regard to that particular person. It matters not. But it matters to the human race that lives on. But it certainly isn’t a black and white issue. A devout believer may be delusional about there being a god but who’s compassionate service makes the world a much better place while another person may be correct in thinking there is no afterlife but is a miserable person to those around him. But all things being equal, the person that is living a life most in line with reality would seem far more healthy for humanity in the long run than the person living a grand delusion.
It might seem like it's better to live "a life most in line with reality " as opposed to "a grand delusion". But really, it makes no difference. I mean, ultimately, everyone is going to die and the universe will end, right? So what difference does anything make?
You don’t see the point in being kind to someone just to brighten their day whether or not a god exists? Seems to me our daily choices are incredibly meaningful to those around us in the here and now. Our actions may be meaningless when considered against the backdrop of long expanses of time but they are very meaningful for the short time we are here. Don’t you agree?
It might make somebody happy for a few moments to smile at them. You might even somehow manage to make an actual impact on their life. But they are only one of billions of people, and these people's lives are only specks when compared to the timeline of history and future, and everything will end eventually anyway. And besides, people are cosmic accidents. So what is really the point? What is the driving factor to make you want to care for people?
What is the driving factor in wanting to care for people if there is no god, no ultimate meaning?
Doesn’t it just make life sweeter? To be appreciative of being alive and easing another’s travels a bit?
Surely you find joy in an ice cream cone from time to time. Yet you know it won’t last but a few precious moments and yet you savor every moment. That is how I look at life. Or look at the child building a sand castle. Such joy! But she knows it won’t withstand the coming waves.
I am a bit odd in the way that my mind works, or, if not odd, at least it could be considered odd for a fourteen year old. I tend to analyze and overanalyze things like my thoughts and feelings and such. I try to determine why I like something or why I am scared of it or what the base of those things are.
Anyway, I asked myself that question for quite awhile: why do I love things that are temporary? Like you said, why do I love ice cream cones? Why do I build sand castles?
I couldn't seem to figure out an answer, and then I read a book called "The Slumber of Christianity" by Ted Dekker. It gave me a very good answer: the reason that Christians do - or at least should - enjoy the little things in life is because they are foretastes of Heaven. The sweetest nectar of this world is hardly a fraction of the one in store. The most thrilling and enjoyable moment of my entire life is a fragment of what will be experienced.
Post a Comment