Sometimes, when theists get stumped by atheists reasoning, they just ask “What if you’re wrong”. Enter the Pascal’s Wager.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/index.html
Pascal maintains that we are incapable of knowing whether God exists or not, yet we must “wager” one way or the other. Reason cannot settle which way we should incline, but a consideration of the relevant outcomes supposedly can. Here is the first key passage:
“God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up… Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose… But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is… If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.
http://www.thejesusmyth.com/pascals-wager.htm
Pascal’s Wager
By believing, you gain all; by not believing, you lose all. Is the choice really that clear?
Let us now speak according to natural lights…Let us then examine this point, and say, “God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up… Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. – Blaise Pascal, Pensées
Pascal’s wager appears pretty straightforward, and logical, it suggests 4 possible outcomes:
- God Exists and you believe – Eternal Bliss
- God Exists and you and you don’t believe -Eternal Damnation
- God Doesn’t exist and you believe – Nothing happens
- God Doesn’t exist and you don’t believe – Nothing happens
In short, Pascal’s Wager implies that if you believe in God, you have better odds of being happy than if you don’t believe in God. There have been numerous arguments against Pascal’s Wager. I myself have my own angle.
Following the logic of Pascal’s Wager, if you are a theist, it is wiser to believe in a vindictive God than a forgiving God. I shall show you the 4 possible outcomes:
- Vindictive God exists and you side with him - Eternal Bliss
- Vindictive God exists and you side with the forgiving God- Eternal Damnation
- Forgiving God exists and you side with him- Eternal Bliss
- Forgiving God exists and you side with the Vindictive God- you may be forgiven
Therefore side with the Vindictive God to be safe? Now who do you think is the nastiest God right now?
The idea of a Vindictive God is very Jewish or Muslim–both incidentally are faiths that originated from lunar (moon) worship.
The faiths that espouse a “good” God or approximate it are Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism (in most of its many forms). These faiths incidentally originated from solar (sun) worship.
Problem:
Christianity presently adopts Jewish tradition as part of its “Old Testament” and merges the Creator God of Abraham with God the Father of Jesus. This implies a God with multiple personalities: Vindictive, jealous, wrathful, but at the same time loving and forgiving.
The early Gnostic traditions of Christianity had an excellent compromise: The Creator God (Old Testament) was different from the True God (New Testament). The Creator God was the “Demiurge” who created the universe in homage to itself. Thus to the Gnostics all of matter and the universe is inherently evil, and we should shun matter and emphasize the spirit to get closer to perfection with the True God.
So if you ask the Gnostics, they believe in TWO Gods, one powerful but imperfect, the other invisible and hidden but perfect.
The writings of St. Paul also espouse the Gnostic mindset–taken separately from the gospels, the Pauline epistles don’t even mention that Jesus was a man at all–but a spiritual being.
Shades of Buddhism also taint Gnostic philosophy as Buddhists espouse enlightenment and detachment from the material world.
Too bad the Gnostics were nearly eradicated during the Inquisition by the Catholic Church as heretics.
How can God know if we truly believe? Is believing just a rational function, a decision? Does God require Faith or Belief? Will God “save” me if I say I believe, but in my heart I doubt? I tried convincing myself of the validity of Christianity for the longest time, like when I was trying to make sense of the world, like when I was problematic, or when I was simply soul searching. But it always screams to me “No! I really don’t believe in this crap!” It’s really hard to lie to myself. Will God know if I’m just lying to Him about my loyalty to Him?
A.L. de Silva posed questions of similar nature about God (specifically the Christian version):
1. How can there be free will?
2. How can there be evil?
3. Why create the universe?
4. Why is God invisible/hidden?
Any of the above questions if taken further will inevitably lead to an inconsistency with an all-powerful, all-intelligent, supreme being.
Epicurus sums up the classic atheistic arguments nicely, which remain unanswered to this day. These pertain to the problem of evil (which is #2 on de Silva’s list above):
If God is willing to prevent evil, but not able;
Then he is not omnipotent.
If he is able, but not willing;
Then he is malevolent.
If he is both willing and able;
Then from whence cometh evil?
If he is neither willing nor able;
Then why call him God?