Does God Exist? Insights from Rabies, Lotto and Pascal
“Then I knelt, too, and prayed: 'O God, if there is a God, forgive him his sins, if there is such a thing as sin.' ”
- Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited
“I am assailed by the worst temptations of atheism.”
- St. Therese of Lisieux, from her diary
“Even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
- J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
“May the odds be ever in your favor.”
- Suzanne Collins, The Hunger Games
First, a disclaimer. This essay will not directly tackle the question of whether or not God exists. The reader is referred to a more profound and entertaining discussion on this topic by Dr. Peter Kreeft, a popular contemporary philosopher and speaker. Instead, this essay will consider God’s existence from the point of view of chance and consequence.
I shall begin by relating a personal experience. A year ago, I received a series of anti-rabies shots for a cat bite. I was peacefully relaxing in a beach hut when I accidentally stepped on a cat which was sleeping just behind my chair. The animal took its revenge by planting its two incisors at my left ankle. It was a mild wound to which I did not give much importance. However, my friends started to call two doctors in order to ask how to administer first aid to me. It was decided that I had to receive an anti-tetanus shot on the same day, then, a series of anti-rabies shots over a couple of weeks. One of the doctors explained that rabies from cats is actually rarer than rabies from dogs. Still, I was advised to take the anti-rabies shots. The chance for getting rabies is low, but the consequence for not receiving the shots could be serious. In a case like this, one could not afford to take a chance.
Now, how are rabies and lotto related to a discussion on the existence of God? The link lies in a hypothetical argument called Pascal’s Wager. Blaise Pascal, a famous French mathematician and philosopher, argued in his book Pensées, that based on chance, reward and punishment, it is more practical to believe in the existence of God.
Let us examine Pascal's arguments in detail. A person can either believe in God or not believe in God; and, God can, in reality, exist or not exist. From these possibilities, 4 cases arise. The first case is that a person believes in God, and God actually exist; the second case is that the person believes in God, and God, in fact, does not exist; the third case is that the person does not believe in God, and God exists; and, finally, the fourth case is that the person does not believe in God, and God does not actually exist.
| Case | Person believes in God | God Exists |
|---|---|---|
| I | Yes | Yes |
| II | Yes | No |
| III | No | Yes |
| IV | No | No |
We now analyze these cases according to their consequences in the afterlife. In the first case, a person believing in God is lavishly rewarded by a God who does exist. In the second case, since there is no God to reward a faithful soul, and in fact, there is no afterlife to speak of, there is also no eternal consequence. In the third case, a person who does not believe in God will eternally be punished in the afterlife. Finally, in the fourth case, since there is no God to punish an unfaithful soul, and in fact, there is no afterlife to speak of, there is also no eternal consequence.
We see that if God exists, one can either merit eternal reward or eternal punishment : the two extremes of eternal happiness and eternal damnation. On the other hand, if God does not exist, there is no eternal consequence at all- a soul will neither be rewarded nor punished in the afterlife because there would be no afterlife.
Now if one were to place a bet, one would never place it on something which would have no consequence (neither reward nor punishment) because the essence of betting is to have a chance of obtaining a reward while taking the risk of receiving a penalty. Moreover, taking a risk for a great reward seems to be acceptable, logical, and at times, even advisable, while taking a risk against a great penalty is not. The stories on lotto and rabies which I have just mentioned earlier precisely illustrate these last two points. Reflecting again on the case of the existence of God, would you rather take a shot at obtaining a great reward or would you take the risk of receiving a great punishment? Or, put in another perspective, would you take a chance at winning the Grand Lotto jackpot or take the chance of getting rabies? Check the odds again and place your bet, and "may the odds be ever in your favor" (Suzanne Collins, The Hunger Games).
FOOTNOTES
Some notes have to be made here in order to have a greater picture of the discussions above.
[1] Actually, a mere belief in God does not automatically merit eternal reward; belief in God has to be supported by a life which precisely reflects this belief in order to merit reward. Similarly, one cannot make a blanket judgment that all who profess to be an atheist will merit eternal punishment. In the first place, conversion is always possible even at the very last moments of life. Many times these conversions are unnoticed. Moreover, the specific circumstances of the person has to be considered. Was the person sincerely seeking an answer to the question of God's existence? Was his belief a result of full reasoning and choice? The person's accountability could be diminished if his belief is overly affected by sorrow, despair or ignorance.
[3] While not believing in God does not actually have any eternal consequence, some could argue, that it has great temporal consequences (consequences on how we live our life on earth). In the Second Case of Pascal's Wager, a person who erroneously believes in a non-existent God, could be argued to have wasted time and opportunities while he was on earth. Those times spent in praying, sacrificing for the sake of doing what is good and right, could be considered as lost opportunities. That is an opinion, of course. Several studies have shown that those who are religious enjoy peace and serenity and happiness. For these people, they have never considered praying and sacrificing for the sake of doing good as time wasted. On the contrary, they have constantly drawn strength, serenity and joy in doing these things.
[4] For the Fourth Case, one could argue that, if only we knew that God does not really exist, then we could act without rules and not give ourselves a hard time trying to do what is right and good. We well know how difficult it is to do them.
But the reality is, no one can really act without any rules. All of us are governed by laws : first the laws of nature, then the laws of good behavior that people expect in community life, then the sovereign laws of the land. Moreover, we have that voice within us called conscience which makes us feel remorse whenever we have done something that we feel we should not have done. Thus, in reality, even if a person does not believe in God, he cannot just actually live in any harphazard way, without regard for those around him.
In my own experience, the atheists that I have come to know are persons who have high ideals – ideals of justice, care for environment and the common good of persons. For this reason, they act in a certain way that they think is good, and they expect other people to act in the same way. Thus, if God does not actually exist, a person who believes in him does not actually have a great disadvantage, and a person who correctly does not believe in him, does not actually have a great advantage.
| Case | Person believes in God | God Exists | Eternal Consequence | Temporal Consequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | Yes | Yes | Eternal happiness | |
| II | Yes | No | None | Wasted time and opportunities? |
| III | No | Yes | Eternal punishment | |
| IV | No | No | None | License to act without rules? |
For feedback, email newind27 [at] gmail [dot] com.
Related posts :
Like Asymptotes on Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/Asymptotes
Follow Asymptotes on Blogger: Join Asymptotes Blogger site
Follow Asymptotes on Twitter: @_asymptotes_
