Some of you may know that I've been engaging with the front man from the band "The Ballroom Thieves" via email after he posted on Twitter about his skepticism regarding prayer. We have had a great discussion founded on kindness and mutual respect. Along the way I made the statement that even if I die and I am wrong about God, I have been a better man and lived a better life because of my belief and I'll just be dead but that a person who doesn't believe has everything in eternity to risk and nothing to gain. Below is his response:
The "why not believe?" part of your response is commonly known as Pascal's Wager. Blaise Pascal posited that, if a believer is wrong about god, he or she hasn't lost anything, and if he or she is right, the prize is eternal happiness. But if a nonbeliever is wrong, he or she is destined for hell. On its face this argument seems neat and straight-forward, but it doesn't really hold up to logical scrutiny.
First of all, it pre-supposes that there isn't a price to be paid for a lifetime of religious devotion. What's the societal impact of 12 million Muslims believing in the metaphysics of martyrdom? What's the cost of Sunni and Shia killing each other with car bombs? What about the long-lasting effects of the fact that many Jews believe that god has granted them the eternal right to a swath of land on the Mediterranean? What's the collective psychological cost of Christianity's century-long anxiety about sex?
The other problem is that, if this argument were valid, it would be applicable to any religion or system of belief, no matter how wild or crazy. The Koran states that anyone who believes in a divine Jesus will be sent to hell. How do we square that with Christian religions? Which belief is the right belief, and how do you tell someone else that their own belief is wrong?
The biggest problem with Pascal's Wager, though, is that it presupposes that we can choose to believe something based on the consequences of not believing it. To believe in god is to believe that you stand in relation to him in such a way that, if he didn't exist, you wouldn't believe in him. Beliefs aren't like clothing. You can't believe something just out of concern for your future gratification. That's now how religious beliefs are acquired in the first place, are they?
I guess what I'm saying is that, in a way, the good religions are also responsible for the bad ones. While I'm really glad to hear that you're a part of a positive, forward-thinking fellowship, steeped in love and peace, I can't help but think that for every such fellowship there are dozens that don't espouse those core values in the same way. I love the thought of prayer as a form of personal meditation, and as such it doesn't have much of an effect on those around you. That kind of religion I can get down with. But as soon as we dive into the idea of spreading what you deem to be the 'correct' religion to everyone else, you open yourself up to a host of problems.
First of all, I didn't know it had a name!? I thought I was being original! Secondly, I'm curious what thoughts you might have as I prepare for my retort. I would love to hear your thoughts on this!
