On of the most fundamental question people have asked themselves is why are we here, existing, living, conscious, moral and rational? We exist, but not like stones or planets in the galaxy - we are a living thing in difference to the stones. We live, but unlike plants and animals: for we are conscious of our existence and this seems to be lacking in plants and amoeba. We are also sentient being and therefore we avoid what brings or increases pain, and craves what brings pleasure and happiness. Reason demands that if we seek these things we should extend it to others too. Moral is does an offshoot of a rational mind.
However, problem starts when you ask the question why are we here in this world? The most ancient, widely accepted and relatively coherent view is that somebody created and put us here and that is God. That this God demand he be worshipped is another belief we came to know but rarely questioned. However, starting from the renaissance period, people have question this position as false and misleading no matter how mind soothing it is.
Blaise Pascal it was who rescued religion from the juggernaut of renaissance intellectualism into the contemporary period with an ace up his mathematical sleeve. The core of religious explanation of human existence and the world at large had been threatened by logico-analytical tradition birthed in Europe by the paradigm shift and it seems the world of the intelligent and educated was tilting towards atheism and humanism. Science was fast wriggling itself out of the dark age and shackle of Christian censorship and philosophy had been the queer gadfly for the religious. Just at the point religion almost lost the battle, Pascal came up with his argument popularly called "The Pascal's Wager" which logic hits us so well up to the present moment that it seems the only efficient life line of religions.
The argument was elegantly put in his paper titled "Penses" where he never argued for the existence of God but for the advocacy of the existence of the Gods. Here is a highly compressed form of the argument once again:
#source: https://www.facebook.com/groups/religion.philosophydiscussion/permalink/2923014701057937/
#source: https://probaway.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/philosophers-squared-blaise
- A rational mind will choose an option that will favour him if it does hurt or hinder anybody.
- As a human being you have the freedom to choose either God exists or He does not exist.
- If you choose that God exists, and eventually he does, you will enjoy paradise for eternit. If however he doesn't exist and you die, then you go to oblivion.
- On the other hand if you do not believe that God exists, and eventually God exists, he will punish you for eternity but if he does not exist in truth, you go to oblivion.
- Given no 1, any rational mind will take first option which is to believe God.
Therefore, in case you are at the crossroad as whether to believe in God or not, Pascal enjoined us to wager for the "God exist" option because we lost nothing if it is false but gain much if true. The second is no option at all because if you choose either of the option you win nothing and even risk eternal torture. So, a man of practical wisdom should and ought to wager for God's existence.
The pull of the logic behind this argument is very endearing to the intellect and emotion. It was so pervasive that Bertrand Russell would later throw critical jab at Pascal that upon his scandalously brilliant scientific mind, religion destroyed him.
A number of criticisms have been raised against Pascal's Wager. One is that, it is doubtful if the God of Christianity and Islam (both religions known to Pascal most) will accept somebody who just want to use the belief in Him to avoid the consequences of not believing and not because the God amount to something significant in Himself. Another is that there are hundreds of Supreme Beings with different features worshipped by people from time immemorial, how do we know the true one or the most Supreme?
Away from these criticisms, I want to posit here that despite the fact that the pull of Pascal's Wager argument is strong on every rational mind, it is actually not because the gain of believing is much more than the gain of not believing that is making people to accept it. It is actually because of the fear of what oblivion means! People seems to think of oblivion as one hell of a long black night in eternity, where you wander in the abyss of darkness for ever. It simply means the end to conscious experience. You will not be conscious in the abyss of darkness. No. Your experience of space-time and materiality and pain will just cease to be. The state your were before you were born. If you contrast this against a conscious life in a paradise where you probably will be singing a chorus for eternity you will begin to see the choices you have in different light. The argument uses a fallacy called "If by Whiskey" on the concept of "oblivion" smartly. Oblivion is represented in the first picture above as "Nothing" and that expresses the general conception. That is the reason why you are told you lose nothing if you believe in God but eventually there is no God and its contraposition - you do not believe in God and eventually there is not God. Truth is you lost something in both choices which is your consciousness as you will still be conscious both in heaven and hell, but not in oblivion. Where the fear lies is what does it feel like to be unconscious for eternity?
If you enjoy this post, kindly upvote and resteem.
Your comments and suggestions are highly appreciated. Thank you.
Congratulations @ojebaba! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP