[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[Angelo Bertolli]

Unfortunately, those who have always had the luxury of believing in God 
with little or no doubt don't really understand that belief in God isn't 
a choice.  It's an argument.  What I mean is you have to convince 
someone in their heart that this is really TRUE.  (If I told you you'd 
go to heaven if you simply believed the moon was made of cheese, could 
you REALLY believe it?)  So Pascal's wager is really a moot point.  
Nevertheless...

I agree with Pascal about the existence of God being unprovable.  But, 
the first problem you run into is "which religion do you choose."  The 
response from Pascal seems to be that's the gamble you take, but you're 
better off taking that gamble rather than simply death.  He bases this 
on the logic that not believing means death and believing means life.  
That's the second problem.  This is really only very clear in certain 
religions.  Plus, he does not account for the fact that a "real" 
religion may not even exist yet (if there is a God).

Popularity of a religion isn't a logical indicator of truth.  I think 
it's an indicator of usefulness, and an indicator of human behavior and 
need.  Maybe if all religions always mysteriously seemed to indicate 
that you need to believe in God or die then it would be more 
convincing.  Pascal's wager's biggest problem is the logic of using 
infinite reward.  If I promise everyone on this list they will go to 
heaven if they simply donate $50 to me and the new religion I'm 
starting, would you do it?  Would you expect an atheist to do it?  Even 
though you may think I'm just crazy, $50 one time is such a minor cost 
on the tiniest fraction of a chance that I might be right.

But the stakes are higher with the major religions:  they expect you to 
give money over a lifetime, follow their rituals and dedicate time to 
them, etc.  All of that commitment, for your entire life, just on the 
chance that there is a God?  See why it still takes some real convincing 
for an atheist, and not just the logic of infinite reward?  (So, I think 
C.S. Lewis' approach to convincing people to believe in God is better 
because he tries to make arguments to actually convince you it's true.)

Instead, I think a better argument is the things you gain from religion 
in THIS life.  In fact, this is becoming more and more of a better 
argument over time as people think less and less the same as their 
predecessors.  Back when the world was mysterious and magical, and 
people believed in ghosts and demons visiting them at night when they 
had sleep apnea, or that they were possessed when they had mental 
conditions, it was a lot more useful to talk about eternal reward and 
punishment.  These days, we have solved a lot of the mysteries that make 
the world seem so numinous to us.


Angelo

-- 
http://angelo.bertolli.org/