Are We Atheists Not Playing the Odds?

Are We Atheists Not Playing the Odds?

By:  Tom Cara, President, FFRFMCC – (Copyright 2013) – 6/1/13

 

One question many non-believers find the most vexing when asked by those of religious faith is:

“Why not just believe in God?  Why take the chance of being sent to hell when it’s so easy to just believe?”

What if God is real and the bible is true and we do live eternally either in heaven or hell?  Is our non-belief that important to us that we are willing to risk spending an eternity in damnation?  After all, by joining the ranks of the believers we have nothing to lose and everything to gain, right?

These are legitimate and, to some degree, very rationale questions, about as rationale as could possibly come from those who cling to blind faith.  17^th century philosopher Blaise Pascal came up with what has become known as “Pascal’s Wager,” which is based on simple probability theory.

Pascal described belief or disbelief in God as a gamble, with the payoff of the gamble as follows:

“If God does not exist, then you neither gain, nor lose anything from belief or disbelief.  In either case, you just die and that is the end.  However, if you choose to believe in God, and you are right, then the reward is infinite: eternal bliss in heaven.  On the other hand, if you choose not to believe in God, and you are wrong, then your payoff is negative infinity: eternal suffering in hell.”

Pascal concluded that the payoff probability weighed to the side of belief.  So we’re left with having to answer the question:  “What if God exists?  Isn’t there more benefit to believing than not believing?”

How should non-believers address these questions?

Neuroscientist and author Sam Harris points out the flaw in such a wager by stating it can, for the most part, justify any belief system and not just one in God.

One problem I have with the wager is that it uses a “generic” god to arrive at its conclusion.  We’re told it is safer to simply believe in God, but which god?  Should we believe in the Judeo/Christian god? (Even Hebrew scripture can’t decide if their deity is called Elohim, Yahweh or Jehovah).  Or should we choose Allah?  or Brahma?  or Zeus?  or Thor?  or Mithra?  or Dionysus?  or Osirus?  The list of course, can go on and on.

And is the god of the Old Testament really the same as the one in the New Testament?  Is the god of Judeo-Christianity really the same as the one of Islam?  If we believe in the Christian god, is it safer to follow Catholicism or Protestantism?  If it’s safer to follow Protestantism, is it safer to be a Methodist?  or a Lutheran?  or a Baptist?  or an Episcopalian?  or a Pentecostal?  or a Presbyterian?  Or is it safe enough to simply say we believe in a god without naming him or having any convictions or a specific doctrine to follow?  The conditions proposed by Pascal are extremely vague and cannot be subjected to rational scrutiny.  Therefore, the conclusion put forth by Pascal is fine and dandy, as long as we believe in the same god as Pascal.

There are certainly a lot of “what ifs…?” in our world.  But when it comes to the question of whether or not God and an afterlife are real, the “what ifs…?” are immeasurable as a result of a true lack of any evidence, and is further complicated by millennia of speculation promoting such a wide diversity of beliefs.  When non-believers attempt to explain that we live in a natural world and not a supernatural one, believers often try to back non-believers into a corner by suggesting:  “But even scientists admit to a higher power.”

The fact is 93% of those who are members of the American National Academy of Sciences claim to be atheist or agnostic.  And most often, scientists who use the words “god” or “higher power” do so only in general terms as a way to simply refer to the nature of our universe and for things we have yet to understand.  When a scientific explanation is finally revealed for a previously unexplained phenomenon, the references to “God” or “A Higher Power” are then always removed from the discussion on that particular topic.  In other words, as we learn more about our natural universe through science, the less often the term “god” is inserted into the discourse, which is why very few scientists believe in a supernatural biblical god.  For the vast majority of earnest scientists, their goal is to seek knowledge and truth.  And we have yet to find a scientist who claimed to be satisfied with the conclusion:  “THE ANSWER CAN ONLY BE GOD.”

Albert Einstein was a perfect example of this when he wrote in his historic “God Letter’ in 1954:

“… The word God is for me (is) nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

But let us get back to the use of “What if…?” questions.  These are commonly used but irrational methods to try and paint opponents into a corner by giving them no factual means of escape.  Such questions most often pose a hypothesis that cannot be immediately proven with the available data, which is why such questions are completely meaningless in a face-to-face debate.  “What if…?” questions are nothing more than tactics used to force an opponent’s hand in coming up with answers to questions that really have no right or wrong answers within the conditions provided.  This is why they are so widely used by the religious.

Most non-believers however choose not to enslave their minds and reject reason and critical thinking on the supposition of a very unlikely “What if…?”  But that’s not to say non-believers can’t play the “What if…?” game just as well!

Most of what people believe about heaven and hell are based on what they’ve conjured up in their own mind, or what they’ve heard other people conjure up.  Truth be told, one would actually find very little in the bible (should they decide to actually read it) that talks about the specifics of heaven and hell.  And because so much of it has been created from human imagination long after the bible was written, an atheist’s point-of-view could ask:  (Note:  For the sake of simplicity, God from here on in will be referred to as “him,” although “her” or “it” could be just as applicable!)

“If God does exist, what if he only wants people in heaven who had spent their lives fearlessly and honestly questioning his existence, and were mentally strong enough not to be coerced into believing something just to secure their own salvation out of purely selfish reasons?  What if the bible was just one of God’s tricks to find out which of us are genuinely altruistic, and which of us are just insincere conformists?”

When believers ask non-believers why we would take the chance, our response to that should be:

“If God does exist, and really is as intelligent and powerful as believers claim he is, wouldn’t he be smart enough to see through the insincerity of those who felt compelled to believe just to save their own skin?”

So rationalists weigh the probability it would unlikely do a person any good to simply claim they believe in God only because they didn’t want to risk eternal damnation.  In other words, how likely are we to have the ability to fool someone whose intelligence level far exceeds our own?  Is just saying we believe enough to sufficiently prove worthiness to such an omniscient yet egotistical god?

Atheists, agnostics, skeptics and freethinkers rationalize that something with that much intelligence would be rational enough to acknowledge it is more important to weigh the good things a person has done rather than being concerned with only whether people believe in him.  The question we must ask believers is:

“If God does care more about obedience to his rule, as opposed to the good deeds people perform, where then does that place him on the morality scale?”

And “what if” someone goes to heaven and is up there knowing full well that many of those they love are down in hell burning and suffering such torments just because they didn’t believe?  Would our own happiness become more important than concern for our loved ones who are spending an eternity of suffering and anguish with no chance of redemption?   Is this what we want to become after we leave this world?

And in being allowed by their god to bask in paradise while ignoring others’ misery, would this not be contrary to what God “taught” them while on Earth about being kind and charitable to their fellow humans?  That by itself would make God the biggest hypocrite of all by telling his minions that since they have now made it to the kingdom of heaven they need no longer show concern over their loved ones in hell.   But again these are all “What if…?” questions, and can only be answered with “What if…?” responses.

And such is religion.

And if God’s only criteria for determining someone’s passage to heaven is by loving and worshipping him as opposed to how kindly we act toward our fellow human beings, then that is a god which every rational, and truly moral person would rather not honor.  On the contrary, they would be more likely to fight him.

For being forced to love someone is not a true act of love.  That is enslavement by a dictator.  And if we do wind up losing this wager, at least we will have spent our natural lives being true to ourselves.

And that is something no one can ever take from us.