TOPIC: Pascal's Wager. Common question by a Christian to try to convert an atheist:
Why are you taking such a risk on being an atheist? If you're wrong, you'll go to hell. You've got nothing to lose by converting and everything to gain.
Answer of Atheist:
This question, which is really just a simplified version of Pascal's Wager, is one of the most popular questions which religious theists — particularly Christians — pose to atheists. It must sound very appealing, reasonable, and rational to them, otherwise atheists wouldn't have to hear it so often. Unfortunately, Christians who use this reveal that they haven't done their homework because there are a number of very obvious and easy objections to this which they seem completely unaware of.
The first problem lies in the implicit yet unstated assumption that we already know which god we should believe in. That assumption, however, is not necessary to the argument, and thus the argument itself does not explain which religion a person should follow.
Ted:I agree to a certain degree, that the atheist will have to qualify which God to believe exists. But since a theist “,…PARTICULARLY CHRISTIANS”, as mentioned by the writer, is the one who asked or posed the question, isn’t it rational that he implies the GOD OF THE BIBLE? If a Muslim asked, then it is Allah… a simple question to ask the theist who posed the wager is this: “so which God do I believe in?” If he doesn’t know the answer, then the so-called theist isn’t worth talking to. Don’t believe him either.
Atheist: This can be described as the “avoiding the wrong hell” dilemma. If you happen to follow the right religion, you may indeed “go to heaven and avoid hell.” However, if you choose the wrong religion, you’ll still go to hell.
Thus even if we accept the premise that we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by converting, what should we convert to? The thing missed by so many who use this argument is that you cannot “bet” on the general concept of “theism.”
Ted:Yes, you cannot bet on the general concept, BUT you cannot ignore the evidence of a God. All the evidence demands a verdict. Who that is, is the responsibility of the individual to search for. Because in the end, if there is a God, He will not be held responsible for us choosing the wrong God, He will surely say that He has revealed Himself to man “so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1)
Atheist:You have to pick specific doctrines. Theism is just a broad concept which includes all possible god-beliefs and, as such, barely exists absent specific theologies. If you are going to really believe in a god, you have to believe in something — which means picking something. If I pick, then I risk picking the wrong god and avoiding the wrong hell.
Ted:A broad concept indeed for the non interested seeker. But a seeker must simply investigate and he will surely come to a point where he rationalizes and realizes that a certain “religion” is false when it becomes somewhat weird in their teachings, such as the origin of man, the world, and opposes the proven scientific evidence and laws. Not theories mind you, because once the evolution theory is proven, (the “full” doctrine is certainly not proven, but the BROAD concept is possible, IF AND ONLY IF an outside factor is present in controlling the conditions of the environment for evolution to be possible), then Christianity is utterly destroyed. Alongside the claims of Christ like His resurrection, if disproved, it topples Christianity altogether. The term theory is also a broad subject to talk about since we have many accepted theories, and are considered laws already, but for this subject matter, evolutionary theory is still a long shot.
Atheist:A second problem is that it isn’t actually true that the person who bets loses nothing. If a person bets on the wrong god, then the True God™ just might punish them for their foolish behavior. What’s more, the True God™ might not mind that people don’t bother believing in it when they have rational reasons — thus, not picking at all might be the safest bet. You just cannot know.
Ted:YES YOU CAN KNOW. Yes, He minds that He be sought, for He will be found. And that issue has already been presented previously. Let’s not go in circles.
Atheist:Some choices do indeed come with large risks. Many have died because they trusted in prayer rather than medicine. Others have perished due to the handling of poisonous snakes and the drinking of lethal liquids because Jesus said they would be able to do so without harm. The choice of pseudo scientific and mystical beliefs can carry very negative consequences.
Ted:I agree. Pseudo scientific and faith healing (by faith healers) is quite un-Christian. Though we certainly believe in miracles and all, but God has simply allowed doctors to gain knowledge of the scientific and medical realm, He also works along side of His creation. Luke, one of the gospel writers, is a doctor, and a very learned man. Just a note, Jesus never said to drink lethal liquids. I know he’s just using it as an example, but it’s just offensive to me that he did so. Please do not misquote Him.
Atheist:A third problem is the unstated premise that the two choices presented are equally likely. It is only when two choices are equal in probability that it makes sense to go with the allegedly “safe bet.” However, if the choice of a god is revealed to be a great deal less likely than the choice of no god, then god ceases to be the “safe bet.” Or, if both are equally likely, then neither is truly a “safe bet.”
Ted:Given the evidence, which can be presented upon request, ( I HAVE TONS of them, it is obviously the “better bet” to believe in a God, compared to not), how can we not conclude that there is a God? But about the safer bet? Nope, My God is jealous. He has no other gods before Him. He will not allow sin. Even if you believe in Him, He will NOT guarantee your safety. He has rules found in Scripture. He is holy and righteous. He has no plan B. His ways are eternal. He is always right. So, heads up atheist, God is NOT a safe bet. He is never the safe bet. He is merciful though, and He is compassionate, abounding in love and forgiveness. His promises for the true believer are incomparable. And that is fully known in the person of Jesus. Get to know Him, I have, and thus, I have the “safe ASSURANCE”, not bet.
Atheist:One final problem is the conclusion of the argument, where a person decides to believe in a god because it is the choice that offers the most benefits and least dangers. This requires that the god in question not mind that you believe in it merely in order to gain entrance to heaven and/or to avoid punishment in hell. Such a god wouldn't be a just or fair god, since a person’s eternal fate is not being decided upon based on their actions, but merely on their decision to make a pragmatic and selfish choice. Does this sound like a god that's worth worshiping?
Ted:Nope, that kind of God isn’t worth worshiping. As I’ve said above, the true God minds that you choose Him, and not only choose, but to believe and follow His rules. And our entrance to “heaven” isn’t decided by our actions, but according to His grace, through faith. We can explore this wonderful concept of grace and mercy sometime else.
Atheist:There are, of course, more sophisticated versions of Pascal's Wager which avoid or minimize some of these issues, but that's only relevant insofar as the Christians who ask the above question never bring up these more sophisticated versions. Instead, they only bring up a very simple version which is actually more susceptible to critique than Pascal's own original. It is, as I said, a sign that they haven't done their homework: they haven't investigated what the argument's strengths and weaknesses are nor are they prepared to answer even mildly probing or challenging questions about it. In short, they just haven't thought the matter through very well and don't expect an atheist who has either.
Ted:In all due respect, I appreciate this atheist’s questions and arguments, but it isn’t remotely wise to assume that Christians do not do their homework. It’s this man and those like him who didn’t investigate enough. Sorry, but I think all your points are, in tagalog: “supalpal”.
No comments:
Post a Comment