Faithful Observer – Blog

I am continuing now a discussion on the August Berkshire article, “18 Unconvincing Arguments for God.” If you haven’t read them already, the prior posts in this series can be viewed under the category Atheism (to the right). I am now moving on to the ninth argument.

Argument 9 (as presented)

(9) Blaming the Victim – Many religions punish people for disbelief. However, belief requires faith, and some people, such as atheists, are incapable of faith. Their minds are only receptive to evidence. Therefore, are atheists to be blamed for not believing when “God” provides insufficient evidence?

This argument is based on two assumptions here that atheists are only “receptive to evidence” and that there is “insufficient evidence.”

First, the idea that atheists automatically are predisposed to evidence is presented in such a way that it is almost risible. We are supposed to accept that somehow being an atheist puts a person automatically on the side of reason, logic, and rationality. To read it this way, one would have to accept that all atheists have investigated the evidence and made a reasonable conclusion. In truth, there are people on both sides of this issue that have followed blindly. At the very least, atheists should accept that and stop using such esoteric language.

Second, in an article consisting of 18 unconvincing arguments for God, we never really get to any evidence. It is kind of hard to blame God for no evidence if you aren’t actually willing to investigate the evidence. Of course, I remind you that I do not know how much investigating August Berkshire has done. He may well be quite scholarly. The problem is that these 18 arguments do not truly consider any of the evidence. Thus, I am left to believe that Berkshire has not done much investigation.

I am continuing now a discussion on the August Berkshire article, “18 Unconvincing Arguments for God.” If you haven’t read them already, the prior posts in this series can be viewed under the category Atheism (to the right). I am now moving on to the eigth argument.

Argument 8 (as presented)

(8) “Pascal’s Wager” / Faith – In short, Pascal’s Wager states that we have everything to gain (an eternity in heaven) and nothing to lose by believing in a god. On the other hand, disbelief can lead to a loss of heaven. We’ve already addressed the issues of heaven and hell, so let us address the faith wager part.

First, it assumes a person can will himself or herself into belief. This is simply not the case, at least not for an atheist. So atheists would have to pretend to believe. But according to most definitions of God, wouldn’t God know we were lying to hedge our bets? Would a god reward this?

Part of Pascal’s Wager states that you “lose nothing” by believing. But an atheist would disagree. By believing under these conditions, you’re acknowledging that you’re willing to accept some things on faith. In other words, you’re saying you’re willing to abandon evidence as your standard for judging reality. Faith doesn’t sound so appealing when it’s phrased that way, does it?

This response will be short and sweet. I have never been a big fan of Pascal’s Wager. And I don’t know many Christians who run around perpetuating it. In fact, I can’t recall any at this point. Thus, it requires me to ask why it is even included in this article?