By Ryan Hemelaar
Notice in Richard Dawkins' response, he doesn't really answer the question properly. He went out on a red herring trail in order to avoid answering the question. For the honest answer would be, "Well, I would get the consequence that is due to me from whichever God that exists."
Supporters of Richard Dawkins say that the question asked rested on a false dichotomy because it invoked Pascal's Wager. However they argue that Pascal's Wager only deals with two options, but since there are many religions in the world, it cannot be applied. Pascal argued that if a person is unsure whether Christianity is true, then they may as well believe in it because there is no bad consequences if they die and there was in fact no God. But here, there are in fact two options: 1. Believe a religion that has punishment if you disbelieve, or 2. Don't believe in a religion.
On a pure probability alone, Atheism is the worst position to hold. This is because if the Atheist's are right then there is no loss to the religious people, they'll just cease to exist like the Atheists. Meanwhile, if the Atheists are wrong, then the Atheists will be punished and not all the religious people will be (for those who subscribed to the right religion will be saved). If you believed in a wrong religion, then you would probably also get punished, but the chance that you will get punished is in fact less if you pick one instead of rejecting all religions altogether. In fact, if you cut out the religions that are logically inconsistent (pantheistic religions, which most of religions are in the world), the probability that your religion is correct is much higher.
Now I am not necessarily saying that a person should pick a religion in hope that they pick the right one (because I think there are much greater arguments that authenticate Christianity), but I wanted to point out the fact that Dawkins could have answered the question honestly, but he didn't.
Now let's examine the rant that Dawkins went on after his first few initial comments. "Why aren't you a Hindu? Because you happened to grow up in America, not in India. If you had been brought up in India, you would be a Hindu."
Strangely, this is actually quite a common objection that Christians receive from secularists, however it is totally fallacious. Because firstly, how can Dawkins prove that if that exact person grew up in India, they would be a Hindu? He cannot rationally prove that.
Secondly, Richard Dawkins said that the reason why the questioner is not a Hindu is because she did not grow up in India. He thinks that a person will belong to a particular religion only because of the location they grow up in. However, he doesn't account for the people who choose to become Christians, even though they grew up in other cultures. Such as Ravi Zacharias, who grew up in India in a Hindu family, yet is a Christian today. Or if we look at Andrew Hsu, from Operation 513, he grew up in Taiwan in a Buddhist family, yet he is a Christian today.
Thirdly, Dawkins commits the genetic fallacy. That is, dismissing a belief as false because of the origins of that belief. For example, there was a monkey that once entered a competition to correctly guess the best stocks for a year in a competition, and it in fact won. Now it is not legitimate to say that the stocks that the monkey chose are bad or wrong, just because it was picked by a monkey, because in fact the stocks that the monkey chose were the best. So in the same way, it is not legitimate to say that a belief is wrong because someone happened to adopt that belief just because they grew up in a certain location in the world.