Pascal, let’s play your game.

There is a rather famous argument against being agnostic- atheist and other forms of non-theism- that many theists usually use. It’s originated from Pascal. This argument goes like this:
“If you don’t believe in God, there are two possibilities. Either it does not exist and you haven’t lost anything (more or less) or it does, and you are doomed to a eternity of hell. So the calculated risk is to believe in the christian god and you will be safer this way.”

Now, this is a very interesting argument. One that I have to say that seems valid. Until that you consider that christian god, is not the only option for a “calculated risk”.

Why believing in christian God is the safer choice than other abrahamic versions of it? or any other entity? If you are to take a risk, is it really better to take one with a toss of coin? If you choose wrongly, as much I read, it wouldn’t be really cool with the other “real” one. In their books they state that they are less cool with people who believe in other gods than those who don’t believe in any.

And if you don’t believe in any of them, still, you are losing.

So, how one can make a calculated risk and choose a safer option? How can one filter through all craps and find the gold? (how did it end up there, I wouldn’t know!).

Well, I had an idea: How about making a method, through which we can filter all the ways that we know craps come to existence. A way to filter all the logical fallacies, cognitive biases, and personal opinions (which most of the times get mixed with facts). Well, I call my idea “The Dude Methode”.

Wow. I feel the chills now!

I went to The Great Professor Dude, himself, to explain my great idea and know what he thinks. But he let me down like this:

Dude! Isn’t that called The Scientific Method?

Now I don’t know what to say to him. He is right. The best way to find the best calculated risk -the safest and most reliable choice we can have- is the scientific method. Which exists. Bummer.

Still there is the matter of God. What did the great mighty science achieve, answering the existence of God? or better yet, the christian God?

Well… as much as I like for Pascal to be right, but apparantly: nowhere.

It just found out that God seems pretty stupid when it comes to its creation AND a great example of having multiple clinical psychological disorders. (I’m looking at you, who thinks bible and such should be followed regardless of existence of God, “because it’s a good body of ethics” Have you read it?!)