It is mutually accepted by skeptics and believers alike that science and religion are two separate entities which cannot be intertwined. A scientist will tell you that his field of study is one that deals with quantifiable and observable things such as speed or weight. Likewise, a religious person will claim that their God is infinite and superior to any form of scientific testing. This is a rare consensus by two polarizing fields that we must all relish. What I find ironic is that a religious person will play the "infinite card" whenever science provides something contradictory to their ideology but, when logic and reason even hint at some truthfulness in their text or beliefs they jump with enthusiasm in saying that even science is on their side. But, I digress.
Blaise Pascal, a French philosopher and mathematician, made an attempt to reconcile the two concepts in the mid 1600s. His theory has many intricate details to marvel over but, in a nutshell, it states: "even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose." As a Christian apologist, Pascal had the Bible's claims in mind when formulating this claim, but it is widely regarded that this "logic" can be used when contemplating any of the vast number of deities in existence.
One is forced to tip their hat off to the Frenchman. He went a step beyond the usual logic that the Bible (or any other text "considered" holy) is the word of God and that's all the proof anyone could ever need. I will even take it a step further and actually agree with him! I mean, it does indeed make sense. Not being a Christian results in burning in hell forever and having to look up at the all the smiling people who threw away any logic and reason to get there. But, actually being a Christian has no implications whatsoever. How many atheists or agnostics have you seen going around to churches claiming that all who submit to this attack of intellectuality will be in immeasurable trouble someday? None.
With that said, I do have a few queries with the reasoning needed to uphold such an assertion. The first is that it is absurd to actually believe that not being a Christian will result in eternal damnation. The only source that states this is an outdated, Bronze Age text that we don't have original copies of or that has ever proven itself credible.
Then, we are forced to wrestle with the issue that an omniscient being would have to resort to fear and coercion to win over the people he created himself. Sure, we have free will. I get that. But doesn’t the bearded guy in the sky have any other ways to advertise this wonderful place called paradise? The only way he seems to be able to make it worth our belief and sacrifice of logic and intelligence is by telling us how bad the other place is. We don’t often contemplate it, but how many people do you think would subscribe to the absurdities of religion if it wasn't for fear of punishment? Would we have this many Christians if they didn't wrongly believe they had everything to lose?
The final problem one finds in the theory is that the other side hasn't resorted to threats. Like I said before, non-believers don't claim that everyone else is doomed simply because they didn’t believe an obscure and obsolete text or didn't ever see it. We are forced to ask ourselves why this is the case. I strongly believe that time of conception has a lot to do with it. Religion was born in a time where human minds were vastly primitive in comparison to today's standards. The writers (middle-eastern men, not God) of the Bible didn't have the advantage of scientific testing and proof or magic to sell their theories. They were forced to resort to scaring the herds of people they governed with their assertions of heaven and hell.
With that said, there are other holes in the ideology. If believing in God makes more sense than not believing in him, then which God exactly do we forfeit our reasoning to!? There are so many! And, they are all equally as gruesome with their threats of unbelief. It's truly a conundrum. I think it's very fair to believe that any unbiased spiritualist seeking the empty hope and comfort that only religion can provide will be utterly lost and confused with his choice. He will be forced, like so many are, to pick the one that suites his way of life and, thereby, creates a god that is in accordance with his criteria. Clearly, the epidemic of creating God in our own image is ever more apparent. Of course, every religious person will argue that they possess the eternal truth and have it right but, they are sadly faced with the burden of proof. And, seeing as they claim that science has no place in religion, they're stuck.
Pascal's Wager is indeed an interesting topic to discuss and contemplate. However, I personally believe that it doesn't serve as a solution to anything. Even if we do somehow forfeit more logic (by logical means, nonetheless!) in believing in one god, how much good will that do? I refer my readers to the post "Jump then Fall", which discusses the epidemic of lukewarm faith and how any god would be unsatisfied with it. It's fair to assume that believing because it makes sense would most definitely be lukewarm faith. We are left with the option of assessing all religions and ideologies about God with a clear mind and, most importantly, without predetermining what result we will have at the end, like Pascal's Wager demands. We will undoubtedly arrive to an array of different conclusions; it's what makes us human. All I wish to one day accomplish is that whatever conclusions we do arrive to, they will not be the result of coercion, fear, need for comfort or indoctrination. You’ll be truly surprised at how similar our conclusions will be.
Blaise Pascal, a French philosopher and mathematician, made an attempt to reconcile the two concepts in the mid 1600s. His theory has many intricate details to marvel over but, in a nutshell, it states: "even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose." As a Christian apologist, Pascal had the Bible's claims in mind when formulating this claim, but it is widely regarded that this "logic" can be used when contemplating any of the vast number of deities in existence.
One is forced to tip their hat off to the Frenchman. He went a step beyond the usual logic that the Bible (or any other text "considered" holy) is the word of God and that's all the proof anyone could ever need. I will even take it a step further and actually agree with him! I mean, it does indeed make sense. Not being a Christian results in burning in hell forever and having to look up at the all the smiling people who threw away any logic and reason to get there. But, actually being a Christian has no implications whatsoever. How many atheists or agnostics have you seen going around to churches claiming that all who submit to this attack of intellectuality will be in immeasurable trouble someday? None.
With that said, I do have a few queries with the reasoning needed to uphold such an assertion. The first is that it is absurd to actually believe that not being a Christian will result in eternal damnation. The only source that states this is an outdated, Bronze Age text that we don't have original copies of or that has ever proven itself credible.
Then, we are forced to wrestle with the issue that an omniscient being would have to resort to fear and coercion to win over the people he created himself. Sure, we have free will. I get that. But doesn’t the bearded guy in the sky have any other ways to advertise this wonderful place called paradise? The only way he seems to be able to make it worth our belief and sacrifice of logic and intelligence is by telling us how bad the other place is. We don’t often contemplate it, but how many people do you think would subscribe to the absurdities of religion if it wasn't for fear of punishment? Would we have this many Christians if they didn't wrongly believe they had everything to lose?
The final problem one finds in the theory is that the other side hasn't resorted to threats. Like I said before, non-believers don't claim that everyone else is doomed simply because they didn’t believe an obscure and obsolete text or didn't ever see it. We are forced to ask ourselves why this is the case. I strongly believe that time of conception has a lot to do with it. Religion was born in a time where human minds were vastly primitive in comparison to today's standards. The writers (middle-eastern men, not God) of the Bible didn't have the advantage of scientific testing and proof or magic to sell their theories. They were forced to resort to scaring the herds of people they governed with their assertions of heaven and hell.
With that said, there are other holes in the ideology. If believing in God makes more sense than not believing in him, then which God exactly do we forfeit our reasoning to!? There are so many! And, they are all equally as gruesome with their threats of unbelief. It's truly a conundrum. I think it's very fair to believe that any unbiased spiritualist seeking the empty hope and comfort that only religion can provide will be utterly lost and confused with his choice. He will be forced, like so many are, to pick the one that suites his way of life and, thereby, creates a god that is in accordance with his criteria. Clearly, the epidemic of creating God in our own image is ever more apparent. Of course, every religious person will argue that they possess the eternal truth and have it right but, they are sadly faced with the burden of proof. And, seeing as they claim that science has no place in religion, they're stuck.
Pascal's Wager is indeed an interesting topic to discuss and contemplate. However, I personally believe that it doesn't serve as a solution to anything. Even if we do somehow forfeit more logic (by logical means, nonetheless!) in believing in one god, how much good will that do? I refer my readers to the post "Jump then Fall", which discusses the epidemic of lukewarm faith and how any god would be unsatisfied with it. It's fair to assume that believing because it makes sense would most definitely be lukewarm faith. We are left with the option of assessing all religions and ideologies about God with a clear mind and, most importantly, without predetermining what result we will have at the end, like Pascal's Wager demands. We will undoubtedly arrive to an array of different conclusions; it's what makes us human. All I wish to one day accomplish is that whatever conclusions we do arrive to, they will not be the result of coercion, fear, need for comfort or indoctrination. You’ll be truly surprised at how similar our conclusions will be.
