Me and a friend had another one of our many stubborn arguments about God. The only difference between me and him is that I actually try to be unbiased and rational. This isn’t the case with him. Here’s an example:
He asks me if there’s a chance God exists even in the slightest bit. I say yes though extremely unlikely. He then goes on to argue that because there is the slightest chance God and heaven might exist shouldn’t you still believe in him and pray just in case you die and find out he exists.
Is there a name for this fallacy or a way to beat this argument because everything I attempt to say goes in one of his ears and goes out the other.
Along Pascal’s line of reasoning, would it not make sense in that case to believe in all gods, just on the off chance that one turns out to exist and holds a grudge?
There is a very small but non-zero probability that I have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about.
I don’t know of any name for any of the fallacies in the argument, but here are a couple of the fallacies:
The same basic argument can be used to argue that you should be a Christian, Muslim, or follower of practically any theistic religion. How is one to know which one is the “correct” one for you? (Maybe Pascal’s Wager implies that you should follow all theistic religions, even if they are mutually exclusive).
Another fallacy is that it presumes that one has complete control over their beliefs. Even if somebody gave me a valid and sound argument that believing the moon is made of green cheese would improve my life, it doesn’t follow that I will truly be able to believe such a thing.
The name of the actual fallacy in Pascal’s Wager is the False Dilemma. It falsely presumes only two possible answers (believe in God or don’t believe in God), when in fact there are an infinite number of choices (because there are an infinite number of possible Gods or other paradigms) and no single choice can be said to be any safer than any other.
Pascal’s Wager is essentially the argument I’ll use with people that deride my Catholocism. However, I temper it this way. I don’t insist it being a Christian God. Thereby covering my own ass on the chance God is actually Buddah or some such other entity. I really can’t see the harm in being of the religious type, as long as it isn’t taken to violent extremes. If beleiving in a God is so harmful, please have any of the millions of AA or NA members back you up.
On the other hand, if people don’t want to beleive and think they really are alone and this is all we have, let 'em live that way. As long as they aren’t robbing banks and shooting puppies, best to leave well enough alone. And keep Heaven’s buffet tables less crowded.
I’m not sure how to reconcile this with my belief, but here’s a reason religion in any form has survived.
People hate to feel alone and useless in life.
Religion and philosophy can easily be interchangable. It’s comforting to live life, which often sucks, and temper it with a belief there’s a reason for the bad stuff. A goal to work towards with the reward of something better after you’ve taken the last breath. And if it involves St Peter’s Great Book, some sort of Karma in the next life, or whatever, I still haven’t seen a valid argument to not have some sort of faith. (Again, barring violent fanaticism {Crusades, Intifada, etc}) If it earns you points with any God or gods is irrelevant if you don’t have a faith. But who the hell does it hurt if you help a homeless family eat and sleep in a dry place if it’s a church doing it?
I won’t challenge any Atheist on their stance. That’s your right. But do not challenge my belief in God. Nor call me a mindless drone to a religion because you feel you’re enlightened.
In addition to Thor, Anubis and Zeus mentioned by others, note that Pascal’s wager applies just as well to a notional deity who sends believers to hell and atheists to heaven.
Weak atheists.
<hijack>It depends if agnosticism means “Unknowable Existence” or “Unknowable Nature.” I tend towards the latter, so I am a weak atheist</hijack>
You realize that this pretty much boils down to wishful thinking, right? God must exist because otherwise you might feel bad? Not that there’s anything wrong with that, mind you – if it gives you comfort, then good for you. But too often I see that line of reasoning offered up as “proof.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t think it’s much of a discussion when the phrase ‘if there’s a chance … even in the slightest bit’ is used.
Is there a chance that Ra the Sun God exists … even in the slightest bit?
Is there a chance God will blast you for simply asking this question … even in the slightest bit?
Is there a chance God won’t want you for simply covering a remote possibility, rather than genuinely believing in Her … even in the slightest bit?
Also I think you should know things such as ‘Buddha wasn’t a God’ if you argue about religion.
When did I mention anything about Buddha? Our argument was related to Christianity and Judiasm, it had nothing to do with Buddha. What are you talking about?
