MiloCast

The French mathematician Blaise Pascal dreamed up a “formula” which he hoped would convince people that they were better off believing in God whether or not such a thing exists. Pascal was a Christian, which explains why a mind renowned long after his death for his genius in mathematics could produce such a ridiculous idea. It is well-known that intelligent religious people actively protect some of their beliefs from their own critical thinking because they are incompatible with the reason they apply to their daily lives.

Pascal’s Wager is, simply put, that you’re better off believing in God than not, because if you do not, and God exists, then you will go to hell. If you believe, whether he exists or not, then you lose nothing (heaven if he exists, but at least no hell if not).

There are many flaws to this poor attempt at logic. The one I hear most frequently is that there are so many gods worshipped today (and in the past), one runs a huge risk of picking the wrong one and thus being sent to hell by the real one. Also, some religions don’t have a hell. Religions which believe in eternal damnation have differing views of hell. If you even have two religions with eternal damnation in their canon, how could you possibly be sure you chose the correct one?

Besides, what is a “belief” worth if you make a mental decision to say you believe in it just out of fear? Wouldn’t any god worth his salt know that you were not a true, faithful believer? If someone believes they can fool a god with this “insurance policy conversion,” then they’re living in fear of a god not smart enough to make it to the final round of most game shows.

The sad part is that many religious believers today still parrot this nonsense. It’s sad not just because it’s foolish, but also because it makes it so painfully obvious that religion is directly responsible for keeping people ignorant. It is, of course, in the best interests of organized religion to keep its flock (interesting term) ignorant for its own financial gain.

All of the arguments used by theists to justify their faith or attempt to convert others have been soundly refuted many, many times. However, one of the features of religion is that it does not allow learning to change anything. If learning disputes religious doctrine, then it’s wrong. And since they don’t have any evidence or rational thoughts which allow them to create new arguments to defend their myths, they just have to keep recycling the old ones, like Pascal’s Wager.