Pascal's Wager? Meh better odds in vegas.

  Pascal's wager is a relatively simple idea but it is flawed in its very concept. Simply put it states there is infinite rewards for believing in the Christian deity and an infinite amount of punishment for not believing. So Pascal states that you better be on the safe side and believe because if the atheists are right nothing happens after death so you haven't really lost anything.

This ignores two basic facets of a thing we call reality, the first and most obvious in my opinion is the false dichotomy it creates. This wager might be worth considering if there is only two options faith in the Christian deity or non-faith. However there are an infinite or at least an unfathomably large number of faiths each contradicting each other. Then it is your daunting task to figure out which of the innumerable faiths is true or whether none of them are. Imagine it this way you are playing Russian roulette with a revolver with an extremely conservative estimate of say 1,000,000 different chambers (each chamber representing a different faith or no faith) 1 of these chambers is empty (representing the correct choice assuming there is one). 1:1,000,000 odds how are you liking your odds now Pascal?

The second problem is the idea that people can choose belief or disbelief. Belief or disbelief is a reaction beyond our control, like a mental reflex you have when you know someone is telling you a bunch of rubbish. If I were to tell you there was an invisible and intangible village of elves living inside my closet you would be immediately skeptical as you simply cannot believe it. Can you choose to believe in this village of elves? Of course not, it is a reaction beyond your control when someone who makes a great claim and offers no evidence. But yet whenever a local church member knocks on my door trying to get me to participate in their services they act as though my skepticism is a choice rather than a reaction. Maybe they act like that because they really don't believe themselves, maybe they act like that because they have to keep telling themselves that this is the truth, maybe they think if they keep lying to themselves their own skepticism they have will just go away. I don't know what it is but I cannot convince myself to believe in something I do not, sorry.

The Moral Argument? What Rubbish!

Alright, this one was a long time coming I have seen this argument used so many times that it makes me sick. I thought I would write about it here because it really irks the hell out of me when some smug Christian thinks he is an intellectual heavyweight when he uses this or some variation of this argument.

So the argument has two premises and a conclusion.

1) If objective morality exists then God exists.
2) Objective morality exists.
Ergo God exists.

Now here is the part that bugs me in such a short argument they have made several different errors, and I am going to probably be all over the place trying to hit them all so bare with me.

The first problem is with the first premise it is an assertion that is not backed by anything. So to be able to use this as a premise you need a separate proof to show that the source of objective morality could be a god and you also must prove that all other infinite explanations for the existence of objective morality do not hold any water.

My second problem is still with the first premise is that they purposefully use the big "G" god as in the Christian deity which is absolutely not founded in anything. It wouldn't bug me as much if they point to something and say, "A god had to make this.". That would still bug me but not nearly as much as when they point to the same thing and say, "My God Yahweh the lord of lords, the king of kings is the only possible explanation for the existence of this thing."

My third problem still with the first premise mind you is it's inherently false. They claim that without their deity in the sky dictating a moral code to the people objective morality cannot exist. Now this is where I wonder if the know what the term objective means.

Objective- Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Now to base your entire moral code on the personal feelings of deity is I believe the very definition of subjectivity. For a moral code to be a true objective measure of right and wrong there must be reasons that can be examined by all. To have morality dictated to us by a deity, any deity is not an objective matter of right and wrong it simply becomes a measure of blind obedience. (This sort of leads into the euthyphro dilemma which I think deserves its own post)

With the second premise my only criticism is that it is a bit of an oversimplification.. While I believe there is an objective moral code in practice the morality or immorality is contingent on the perspective that the individual has on the moral codes. In short it isn't always as clear cut when complicating factors are involved.

The conclusion has one basic flaw, it is based on faulty premises.