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.
PS: - the defeater of Pascals Wager is the question
ReplyDeleteWhich do you love more, truth or your self?
For me, I would rather pursue the truth as my beliefs (no matter the potential cost for being wrong) than lie to myself out of fear for my safety. But thats just me.
'Which do you love more, truth or your self?'
ReplyDeleteIn your arrogance you have forgotten something Alex, Pascal's wager comes after seeing there is an enormous burden of evidence pointing to God's presence in the universe. It may sound brave to say that you are going to be true to yourself but the reality is that the opposite of what you are claiming is true: you love yourself and your sinful rebellious life more than the truth! This is made plain by your responses to Josh Williamson in earlier posts.
Despite this we're all praying for you.
Ok, I see the points from both sides kinda, but I think belief is something you should come to honestly and with a purity of purpose, not because you'll be punished if you don't.
ReplyDeleteFor me it comes down to this - I see a lot of religious conflict and infighting etc, and not a lot of religious good happening. From my observation a lot of good can come from faith (here distinguishing 'religion' as in the organisation and factions, and 'faith' as the belief in something greater than ourselves). I strive to have faith, but fail to see how religion is necessary, or even wise, in this process.
In reading Dawkins' work, I do agree with him that pascal's wager is a total cop out, a way to avoid thinking (which I can never condone). It uses the lowest forms of moral reasoning (preconventional morality), based purely on the fear of punishment and hope for reward. Most of us get out of that stage (except for a great majority of criminals), and I hope that we can see past it.
And what if the true religion punished believers in false religions (or just specifically your religion) more than it would punish atheists? For some reason it seems always assumed that punishments for non-belief and wrong belief are the same. :-)
ReplyDeleteAnyway the point is, you can't use Pascal's Wager to make a decision unless you have the exhaustive true picture, which will probably never happen.
"I strive to have faith, but fail to see how religion is necessary"
ReplyDeleteWell, when I say religion, I mean belief system (not neccesarily an organisation). I would say that Christianity is a belief system, but not an organisation (unlike the Church of Scientology).
"I do agree with him that pascal's wager is a total cop out, a way to avoid thinking"
You are misunderstanding Pascal's Wager, or Dawkins represented a straw man of Pascal's position. Pascal was saying that if you are 90% sure Christianity is true, then you may as well believe in it because nothing bad can result from doing so. But he was not using it as an excuse for blind faith.
On the contrary Ryan, I think Pascal's wager is pretty damn clear. You are better to believe in nothing, than to not believe as there is no risk.
ReplyDeleteI tend to think that anything where people can contradict others based on a book as an organisation. Might just be one of my things, I very strongly think that belief should be something that people come to on their own.
Believe in something, my bad, typo.
ReplyDelete//"You are better to believe in something, than to not believe, as there is no risk."//
ReplyDeleteNo, that is not an accurate portrait of Pascal's arguments found in his book, Pensées. Pascal was saying that if someone is unsure whether God exists or not, they may as well believe that God exists because there is nothing bad that would occur to them if they did, but there would be really bad consequences if they didn't. He was NOT saying, "For those that have shown that God probably does not exist, you may as well believe in Him...etc". No, he was simply talking to the agnostics.
Just like if you were in a building and the fire alarm went off. You don't see the fire, so you are unsure as to whether it exists or not. Pascal is saying it is better to believe there is a fire and thus get out of the building to save your life. Because if you are wrong and there was no fire, nothing much is lost on your part. But if there really was a fire and you didn't believe it existed and thus didn't ever get out of building, you would die.
But as I mentioned in the article, there are many great arguments supporting Christianity, that somebody probably wouldn't ever need to wager like this because they would know that God exists.
However, for those people that are still unsure, Pascal's Wager is fair and valid for them to use.
My objection to it still holds under that, in fact thats exactly what I'm talking about. You are assuming that believing is something one can simply decide to do.
ReplyDeleteIn your fire example, you dont need to believe there is a fire, simply prepare for the eventuality that there might be by getting out. With religion, the belief and preparation are one and the same. If you aren't sure, you still aren't sure.
And this again assumes that any God would prefer insincere belief to sincere questioning.
"You are assuming that believing is something one can simply decide to do."
ReplyDeleteYou can't decide to believe in something? Really?
"you dont need to believe there is a fire, simply prepare for the eventuality that there might be by getting out"
The only reason why someone would leave the building is because they know there is a very high chance that there is a fire. And there are no bad consequences for leaving the building if there was in fact no fire. However, if there was a fire and they did not leave the building, bad consequences would result, namely death.
"And this again assumes that any God would prefer insincere belief to sincere questioning."
If someone does not know whether something exists to absolute certainty, it doesn't mean that they will be insincere in their belief about that something.
No, believing is something that comes to me when I'm sure. I have no problem with being undecided as to a problem if I am honestly unsure as to where I stand.
ReplyDeleteAnd in the fire example, I'm pretty damn sure I'd be out of there if I thought there was the slightest chance of a fire, not only if there was a high likelihood.
Also, there is the question of which God. I have seen evidence in all religions of contradictions, and thus cannot in good conscience believe in any one of them fully. Thus I figure I'm better to find my own path, and at that stage you realise that your own belief system really doesn't need to include belief (its only a virtue as said by religions). Not particularly useful, but still fun.
I think it comes down to a religious mindset (not necessarily yours) that you should believe in something. In attempting to become more open minded to it all, I have found myself believing in nothing, but disbelieving very little as well. Its an interesting viewpoint to try.
"I'm pretty damn sure I'd be out of there if I thought there was the slightest chance of a fire, not only if there was a high likelihood."
ReplyDeleteWell then, there is even more than a 'slightest chance' that God exists, so therefore, why do you not take action like you do in a fire situation? The consequences of staying in the building is death, but the consequences of not trusting in Christ is eternity in Hell. That's a much bigger consequence, and so even more the reason to take action.
"I have seen evidence in all religions of contradictions"
I would agree that there are contradictions with every religion in the world, however Christianity is an exception to that rule. Nothing within the Bible contradicts other parts of the Bible if read in context.
Comes down again to the choosing to believe thing really. I would be lying to myself if I said, 'well, just cos I might go to hell if I'm wrong, I believe there is a christian God now!' Maybe its just me, but I reckon God would see through something like that.
ReplyDeleteIf believing meant just wearing a cross around my neck, then sure I'd do it, if there was a chance it would protect me. I'd also wear a red string around my wrist, and whatever strange hat was the sign of faith to utanga the weasel god (jokes). But its not that simple.
I have not read a great deal of the Bible, but the issue I refer to here and have the most problem with is predestination vs benevolence. If God made us (set everything in motion) and He knows everything, He knows the future and every step we will take, and He set us on the path. In such a case, He is dooming a good lot of people to hell.
"I would be lying to myself if I said, 'well, just cos I might go to hell if I'm wrong, I believe there is a christian God now!'"
ReplyDeleteBut as I said earlier, you shouldn't believe solely because you could be wrong. You should also see all the positive proof there is for God. And for those that are still not fully convinced after that, they should couple the proof for God with Pascal's Wager, and it will lead them into believing in the Christian God.
"If believing meant just wearing a cross around my neck, then sure I'd do it...But its not that simple."
You're right, it's not that simple. Just like in the fire example, you firstly believe there could be a fire, and so you do something about it, you exit the building. In the same way, you come to believe there is a God, and then you do something about it, you repent of your sins and trust that Christ died on the cross for you, then you are out of danger in respect to Hell. And you can also now look forward to spending an eternity in Heaven with God.
"have the most problem with is predestination vs benevolence"
It is true that God chooses those who would be saved and those who will not be. But He has every right to do that, and remains just in the whole process. Because the fact is, is that we do not deserve salvation even in the slightest. God could have sent everyone to Hell as soon as they sinned. But He has been patient with us, and in fact provided a way out so that we could be saved (through Jesus' death). But since our hearts are at such enmity towards God, we do not choose to follow God. So God has to change our hearts to make us follow him. God could have saved everyone, but He didn't have to. The reason why He only will save some, is to show to those who will be saved, "Look this is what you were saved from" and point to the people in Hell. If everyone was saved, then salvation is massively diminished, because what are we being saved from?
But from man's perspective, a person must repent and trust Christ died on the cross for them to be saved. But if they do repent and trust, it is because God has changed their hearts to choose Him. And since we do not know who the elect of God are, that is why we call everyone to repentance and faith to be saved.
"Just like in the fire example, you firstly believe there could be a fire, and so you do something about it, you exit the building. In the same way, you come to believe there is a God, and then you do something about it, you repent of your sins and trust that Christ died on the cross for you, then you are out of danger in respect to Hell. And you can also now look forward to spending an eternity in Heaven with God."
ReplyDeleteAh, but you changed a very important word there - came to believe there COULD be a fire, vs came to believe there IS a God. I have come to believe there could be a God, doesn't have to be a christian one though.
As to salvation - God picks who is to be saved (changes their minds) and then leaves some to perish and be in hell so that the ones he picked - completely arbitrarily, as our works and minds are unworthy - get to go, 'well hey, I'm glad I'm not them'. I don't need to see people suffering to appreciate how lucky we are here, don't see why it needs to be that way in heaven. And if he picks people, and bestows grace arbitrarily, then he cannot be just. A teacher is not just if they teach only one pupil, they must teach all, especially if they have the power to. It is also not benevolent, as He is knowingly condemning people He says He loves to eternal damnation.
It is sad to see how the errors of Calvinist predestination can prevent people from accepting the Lord. Since God knows the end from the beginning, He knew who would accept his free gift of salvation even before the World was created. However, there are many scriptural verses that prove that salvation is free for everyone. For example,John 3:16 "For God so love the World that He gave his only Begotten Son that WHOSOEVER believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life" or 2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that ANY should perish, but that ALL should come to repentance".
ReplyDelete