Reconsidering Atheist's Wager
In his first blog posting, Atheist's Wager discusses Blaise Pascal's Wager which was posed by the famous 17th Century mathematician and scientist to convince himself of the rationality of his faith in God. (I plan to return to this very important piece of logic in a later blog posting because it deserves a proper treatment.)
After accurately describing the Wager, the author proceeds to use the fact that one has to consider more religions in this day and age than they used to try to disprove Pascal's logic. The argument employed consists of the following:
- More religious choices are available to someone than those Pascal specifically discussed in his Wager.
- Relgion of all types is harmful because it divides humanity instead of unites it.
- Descriptions of different massacres carried out in the name of religion throughout the years are provided. These include Christians and Muslims killing one another during the Crusades, Jews conquering the Biblical Land of Canaan, Protestants, Catholics killing one another in Ireland, and Shiites and Sunnis killing one another in the Middle East.
- Citing #3 above, he states that unproved religious beliefs are responsible for having killed millions of people over the years.
- Therefore, he twists the wager to the Atheist's Wager stating that it is more moral to be atheist than theist.
| Chairman Mao (China) | 77 million |
| Stalin (Soviet Union) | 43 million |
| Hitler (National Socialist Germany) | 21 million |
| Khmer Rogue (Cambodia) | 2 million |
| Kim Jong-Il (North Korea) | 1.5 million |
| Godless' Total Murders | 144.5 million |
Many atheists would have you believe that it's a case of either choosing religion which murders people in its name or the saintly anti-religionists who just want to be left alone. Unfortunately, the above data shows that a more honest accounting of the historical record shows that the religion of godlessness causes more suffering and harm than any other system of beliefs.
Atheist's Wager continues his argument with "If God only rewards those who follow the 'correct' faith and faith is inherited from one’s parents, then the God who refuses to prove his existence is playing favorites over his creation based on tribal lines pitting groups of humans against each other just like our aliens." Here he is misguided because Christianity is open to anyone who is willing to accept Jesus Christ as his Savior regardless of his or her ethnic group or parents.
Finally, Atheist's Wager concludes with this statement: "Unless God proves his existence and changes the outcomes, we as a race owe it to ourselves to not worship Him."
On this matter, I shall let God speak for Himself:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures." Romans 1:18-23 (NASB)
Reference:
Wikipedia entry on Pascal's Wager:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
Wikipedia entry on R. J. Rummel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rummel
Rummel's Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html
Romans Chapter 1:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201;&version=49;
11 comments:
Do you have any evidence that even one of those people were killed "in the name of atheism?"
Do you have any evidence that anyone has ever been killed because they were not an atheist? (hint:no)
Most atheist are law abiding and intelligent people (statically speaking), you're just pointing out a couple of bad apples.
His historical citations were people who killed others for the reason of religion (with the possible exception of N. Ireland). Your examples are people who happen to be atheist. Not to mention you both mention Hitler. Which side is he on?
Secondly, using a religious document to rebut a logical argument about religion is pointless - if you really want to turn back his argument (and honestly, I really do want to hear a well-thought out reply to this, I think it's certainly possible), you have to use reason, using Bible verses is like ending an argument with "'cause God told me so"
On second thought, I take back Chairman Mao, he certainly does harass Christians, but you can't seriously say he killed 77 million of them.
You seem to be missing the point that he is simply refuting the argument that more people were killed in the name of religion. Atheists killed more people.
The fact that it is argued that Nazis were Christians brings up the fact that it is possible to be a false Christian. Like in the Romans verse he quoted, it states that they worshiped the image of man. The Nazis worshiped the Arian race, rather than the true God.
Try reading this:
http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/03/hitler-and-stalin-cliche.html
Hmm...you say "On this matter, I shall let God speak for Himself". Don't you mean you will let whomever wrote Romans 1:18-23, and then all the people who translated it, perhaps correctly, perhaps not, speak for Him?
I find it quite foolish to imagine that a book, written and translated by people, with all the uncertainty that implies, is in any way "God speaking for himself".
Let's look at this a different way. Stalin, Mao and the others you mention created a religious power structure in which they were the god-figure and demanded not just respect or obedience but religious devotion. I therefore suggest that you're creating a false division between god-worshippers and atheists, that the question of god is irrelevant in that context, and that it is the power structure of organised religion that is to blame for all those deaths, from theists and atheists alike.
All right all this tells me is that leftist extremism and religion are bad.
But i dont think it does the first because the persecution that occured at the hands of Stalin, Mao, etc was not aimed at destroying God (altho there was some such criticism). Regardless the motivations where not religiously derived.
First poster, I would like to say that you know nothing of what you are talking about. People have been killed for not being atheists throughout history. Communist Russia is one example, and all the people who "dissapear" in China for their beliefs would still be alive if they weren't Christian. You could say, "They weren't killed because they weren't atheists, they brought it upon themselves!" However, atheists are the ones killing them. Please become more intelligent before you post.
This blog posting blows. You're logic is fundamentally flawed. Associating atheism with murderous people does not move forward your argument. (not to mention Hitler was christian) There is a difference between causation and correlation. In your post, you CORRELATE murders with atheism. There is no causation here. You did not prove Atheism = Murders. You proved nothing. If you want to site statistics, site relevant ones. (for instance Atheists make up 8-10 percent of the population, but make up less than 2 percent of the prison population.) In fact, atheists are skeptical of ANY belief that does not contain proof. Was there proof for Hitler that the Arian race was the best?
The sources you have used are ridiculously inaccurate, your welcome for taking my time to check and varify your sources. The source which you have used, used books written by a person called Jung Chang. I have no idea where she got her figures from, but coming from a Chinese community that underwent the Great Leap, her numbers are way off. Although some of the incidents she was reciting were true and accurate. No one will know the real figure that died during the reign of Mao, but that 77million figure is inaccurate. The source did not exclude those that died during war (Sino War, Chinese Civil War, Korean War, Russian-Chinese Border conflicts, Indo-Chinese Border war, and Vietnam War) and natural disasters such as the Tang Shang, ShanXi, and Hai Yuan Earthquake and more. Also, many of the other figures your source stated are also inaccurate.
Please, next time you post a blog, choose a more accurate source.
Post a Comment