Quantcast
About this site
About us
Our beliefs
Is this your first visit?
Contact us
External links
Good books
Visitor essays
Our forum
New essays
Other site features
Buy a CD of this site
Vital notes

World religions
BUDDHISM
CHRISTIANITY
   Who is a Christian?
   Shared beliefs
   Handling change
   Bible topics
   Bible inerrancy
   Bible harmony
   Interpret Bible
   Persons
   Beliefs, creeds
   Da Vinci code
   Revelation, 666
HINDUISM
ISLAM
JUDAISM
WICCA / WITCHCRAFT
 
Other religions
Cults and NRMs
Comparing religions

Non-theistic...
Atheism
Agnosticism
Humanism
Other

About all religions
Important topics
Basic information
Gods & Goddesses
Handling change
Doubt/security
Quotes
Movies
Confusing terms
Glossary
End of the world
One true religion?
Seasonal topics
Science v. Religion
More info.

Spirituality and ethics
Spirituality
Morality and ethics
Absolute truth

Peace and conflict
Attaining peace
Religious tolerance
Religious hatred
Religious conflict
Religious violence

"Hot" topics
Very hot topics
Ten commandments
Abortion access
Assisted suicide
Cloning
Death penalty
Environment
Equal rights -gays/bi's
Same-sex marriage
Nudism
Origins of the species
Sex & gender
Sin
Spanking kids
Stem cells
Women-rights
Other topics

Laws and news
Religious laws
Religious news

Sponsored links

!!!!!!!! Search error!  If the URL ends something like .htm/  or .htm# delete the character(s) after .htm and hit return.

An essay donated by Cary Cook

"After Pascal:" thoughts on an afterlife

horizontal rule

Sponsored link.

horizontal rule

The question of theism vs. atheism has been seen, quite rightly, in terms of which premise is true. But after millennia of failure to prove the issue either way, should we not move on to the next question? If we don’t (and probably can’t) know which premise is true, possibly we can determine which is most worth betting on.

Pascal, in my opinion, gave us a good start, but failed to take his reasoning far enough. He stopped at the God of the New Testament, and figured that the benefit of betting on this deity and being right would far outweigh the benefit of betting against him and being right. Conversely the punishment for betting against this deity and being wrong – yada yada.

But the God of Pascal’s wager was arbitrary. It could have just (or almost) as rationally been Allah. And this deity administers rewards or punishes based not on people’s ethics but on their believing the right spiritual sales-pitch. Furthermore, those rewards or punishments are both exorbitant and eternal. Those two factors make him not only arbitrary; but unjust and evil. Would our Creator, who designed our sense of justice, then reward us for worshipping an apparently unjust God?

Let’s take Pascal a step further. What is the most sensible bet a human can make, given the uncertainty of an afterlife? If we love justice, an unjust God cannot possibly get us to worthwhile life, so that option is out.

That leaves:

  1. We can bet on no afterlife and grab for the greatest pleasures available without regard for ethics.
  2. We can bet on an afterlife with just rewards & punishments, and behave so as to deserve what we want.

But what are the odds that a just God is out there, given what we have seen of this planet? Close to zero – unless there is an afterlife in which everyone gets exactly what he deserves. So ultimately there is absolutely no way to judge those odds.

Therefore, I would assert that an afterlife with just rewards & punishments is a reasonable bet – not because of any compendium of allegedly holy scriptures, but largely in spite of them all. Nevertheless, one necessary precondition of a just community is to have just persons in charge of it. And strangely enough, most Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe their God to be somehow just and righteous – often despite scriptural evidence to the contrary. Each of these religions, in fact, holds both a just and an unjust version of its respective God – one who rewards & punishes appropriately, and one who rewards & punishes inappropriately. Therefore, instead of trying to convert others to our own religion (or lack of it) should we not be trying to convert them to the just version of their own God?

If ultimate justice does not exist, then nihilism – God or no God. If ultimate justice does exist, what are the necessary preconditions of it?

  1. An afterlife,
  2. A just being (or group of beings) in charge of it, and
  3. Just enforcement throughout it.

This, I contend, is our only chance of worthwhile life, and therefore not only a reasonable bet, but the only reasonable bet.

horizontal rule

Reference:

This essay appears on the web at: http://www.sanityquestpublishing.com/

horizontal rule

Site navigation:

Home page > Visitor essay > here

horizontal rule

Originally posted: 2008-MAR-11
Latest update: 2008-MAR-11
Author: Cary Cook

line.gif (538 bytes)

horizontal rule

Go to the previous page, or to the Visitor essay menu, or to the Afterlife menu, or choose:

Google
Web ReligiousTolerance.org

Go to home page  We would really appreciate your help

E-mail us about errors, etc.  Purchase a CD of this web site

FreeFind search, lists of new essays...  Having problems printing our essays?


Twitter link

Facebook icon

Google Page Translator:

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.