Religious Wagers
Pascal’s Wager essentially states that it makes the most sense to have faith in the Biblical God because if he is real then a believer will earn entry into Heaven while a nonbeliever will suffer for eternity in Hell, whereas if God is not real, both lose nothing (unless to say the believer loses his sense of reason, which seems a fair stake for the chance of eternal bliss). The matrix looks like this:
| Believer | Non-believer | |
| God is real | Eternal Bliss | Eternal Pain |
| God is not real | [Reason] | no loss |
Pascal’s Wager is frequently offered by modern Christians as justification for faith, even though Pascal himself said that the wager is only enough to consider finding faith. Nevertheless, they will say, “You’ve got nothing to lose and everything to gain…and if you’re wrong, then Hell awaits you!” There are, of course, many logical shortcomings in this wager. For example, it doesn’t include the possibility that:
* The Christian god isn’t the correct deity
* God’s judgment is arbitrary
* God might also reward honest unbelief or punish dishonest belief
* Belief isn’t a necessary or adequate criteria for entry into Heaven
So, let’s take these issues into consideration in the following table, assuming the religion is Christianity with a “good” non-believer and an undefined believer:
| Undefined Believer | Good Non-believer | |
| Christian God is real; only requires faith |
Heaven | Hell |
| Christian God is real; requires faith plus good acts |
Heaven or Hell | Hell |
| Some God is real; only requires good acts |
Heaven or Hell | Heaven + Reason |
| God is real; but arbitrary or not Christian |
Unknown | Unknown |
| God is not real | Squandered life | Reason |
When we add these choices, then the best choice is to be a good non-believer, because she has the best possible outcome—she gets both reason and Heaven if God is real and rewards those who act good. Likewise, in this choice and the choice where God is not real, the non-believer gets to have a fulfilling life of doing good deeds, without any unnecessary emotional, physical, or material sacrifices in the name of faith.
If the believer is good, then he has two extra chances to get to Heaven, but no one can know for certain what qualifies as “good enough”. The undefined believer might be “good enough” in choice #3, but has nevertheless made unnecessary sacrifices that the non-believer did not make. If God is not the Christian god, then there is equal risk of the unknown, making a rational and good life that much more worthwhile. If God is not real, then the believer does not have zero loss: he has, as Dawkins’ writes, squandered his “precious time on worshiping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc.” And Hell becomes less one-sided, since the believer might get there if he is not adequately good (e.g. the mass murderer who repents in the gas chamber).
On top of all this, we then need to take into account the likelihood of God’s existence. There are already many arguments out there about this, but I will keep it at this: God isn’t necessary. God is not necessary to explain the origin of the universe, universal laws and processes, or how we humans came to be. There is no question in science that is best answered with “God”. This doesn’t prove his non-existence, but it does make it very, very unlikely, especially when we consider the countless number of gods humans have created and the complete lack of observable evidence for any of them. Virtually every universal theory that has arisen from religion has been shown to be wrong; why not just admit the concept of supernatural dualism is wrong altogether? With this in mind, we have to put the choices on a scale, with the existence of God being very unlikely and the non-existence of god being very likely.
The fundamental problem with all of this—as has been pointed out by non-theists many times before—is that one cannot be threatened into genuine belief. Faith requires that I honestly think that something is true. Any fear of being wrong does not, in itself, provide evidence that something is real.
And finally, I present my own Naturalist Wager:
If there is a creator God, then he created the universe and the world and humans. He also created your brain that is able to observe and reason and feel compassion. Looking at and learning about His creation using direct observation and empirically-based reason would honor His gifts, while making the world a better place for every human would honor the heart He gave you. If a loving creator God is real, it is reasonable to believe that He will reward you for your faith in Him and for the use of the reason and compassion He gave you. If God is not real, then you will have made excellent use of your life by fulfilling your ability to learn about and find wonder in the natural world and by making life a bit more worth living for those who remain.
Excellent points about just how ludicrous is the whole idea of Hell, and believing out of the fear of going there.
I’ve actually written an entire book on this topic–”Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There’s No Such Place As Hell,” (for anyone interested, you can get a free Ecopy of my book at my website: http://www.ricklannoye.com), but if I may, I’d like to add one more point from my book to the many good ones you’ve presented here.
What these believers don’t consider is the real consequence of “winning” their wager. So, they end up in Heaven trying to sing praises to a God who is, simultaneously, torturing billions of others. How long is it before they would have to begin wondering, “When am I next?” Soon, the joy of Heaven is lost, and replaced by gloom and foreboding! After all, which is more difficult? For God to actively cause such immense pain, or to go back on whatever promises he made to a few others that he would not include them? No, such a cruel being would very likely, at some point, grow weary of surrounding himself with such lackies that he’d toss them in the lake of fire as well.
Your wager give new meaning to the phrase, “Thank God for science and reason.”
I pity the majority of sheeple who due to various cultural and familial circumstances have been led to believe various fairy tales and perverse judgments of others who live in other cultures or believe competing creation myths. Too often they are kept ignorant by a ruling class who leverage their beliefs into a self-serving power structure.
It seems reasonable to refer to religious people as “delusionists”.
Not only do they lose their sense of reason, but also all the time and effort used up for an empty cause their entire lives. Imagine if they put that time to something productive.