Why Pascal believed, but I don't
Few years back, over steamboat atop Block C's rooftop, some MafBrothers engaged in a conversation on religion, a subject which admittedly, we're all not too well schooled in. During the conversation, I muttered words which I believe explain why I was and still am not religious.
Me: Imagine if we are all Christians. Then after we die, the God that we meet is not the God that we have been praying to. What if it's Buddha or Allah who meet us? How would or should we react?
Someone: Aiyah, just say to the God, "Huh...how come it's you? Give chance can or not?" loh.
Me: Then the God will tell you, "Give you so many hints already you don't believe. Too bad lah."
In any case, it could very well have been that we were all Muslims or Buddhists but the God that receives us is not the one that we were expecting. What should we do at that point of time?
I think being brought up in a multi-cultural and multi-religious country like Singapore meant that most of us have a choice in choosing our religion. No one forces religion upon me because my family isn't deeply religious. I am open to the possibility that any existing religion might be the "correct" or "true" one. Faced with so many choices of religions, I would rather not choose any because I really can't tell which is correct and which is not.
I prefer to reserve the possibility of meeting God and saying, "Hor...yuan2 lai2 shi4 ni3". And then try to bargain my way out of going hell=)
Anyway, I found out recently - to my disappointment because I had thought it was original - that my argument for not being religious had already been "intellectualized" or "formalized". It is one of the criticisms of Pascal's Wager.
Blaise Pascal, considered by many to be the father of probability theory, was a religious man. Pascal's Wager provided insights as to why Pascal was religious. In Pascal's Wager, he asked, "God is, or he is not. Which way should we incline? Reason cannot answer." Pascal framed the question in terms of a game of chance. A coin is tossed. If head appears, then God is. If tail appears, then God is not. Which way should we bet?
In Pascal's Wager, there is a 50-50 chance for God to exist or for God to not exist. In order to decide whether to bet on the existence of God or not, Pascal suggests that we consider the consequences of each outcome. If God does not exist, then it is immaterial if we live our life piously or sinfully. However, if God exists, and we bet against the existence of God and lead a sinful life, then we run the risk of eternal damnation. "Which way should we incline?" It was obvious to Pascal.
But Pascal, in his wager, did not take into consideration the existence of different religions, and hence the possible mistake in committing to one religion. If only he was Singaporean, it would be interesting to see which way he would bet=)
Me: Imagine if we are all Christians. Then after we die, the God that we meet is not the God that we have been praying to. What if it's Buddha or Allah who meet us? How would or should we react?
Someone: Aiyah, just say to the God, "Huh...how come it's you? Give chance can or not?" loh.
Me: Then the God will tell you, "Give you so many hints already you don't believe. Too bad lah."
In any case, it could very well have been that we were all Muslims or Buddhists but the God that receives us is not the one that we were expecting. What should we do at that point of time?
I think being brought up in a multi-cultural and multi-religious country like Singapore meant that most of us have a choice in choosing our religion. No one forces religion upon me because my family isn't deeply religious. I am open to the possibility that any existing religion might be the "correct" or "true" one. Faced with so many choices of religions, I would rather not choose any because I really can't tell which is correct and which is not.
I prefer to reserve the possibility of meeting God and saying, "Hor...yuan2 lai2 shi4 ni3". And then try to bargain my way out of going hell=)
Anyway, I found out recently - to my disappointment because I had thought it was original - that my argument for not being religious had already been "intellectualized" or "formalized". It is one of the criticisms of Pascal's Wager.
Blaise Pascal, considered by many to be the father of probability theory, was a religious man. Pascal's Wager provided insights as to why Pascal was religious. In Pascal's Wager, he asked, "God is, or he is not. Which way should we incline? Reason cannot answer." Pascal framed the question in terms of a game of chance. A coin is tossed. If head appears, then God is. If tail appears, then God is not. Which way should we bet?
In Pascal's Wager, there is a 50-50 chance for God to exist or for God to not exist. In order to decide whether to bet on the existence of God or not, Pascal suggests that we consider the consequences of each outcome. If God does not exist, then it is immaterial if we live our life piously or sinfully. However, if God exists, and we bet against the existence of God and lead a sinful life, then we run the risk of eternal damnation. "Which way should we incline?" It was obvious to Pascal.
But Pascal, in his wager, did not take into consideration the existence of different religions, and hence the possible mistake in committing to one religion. If only he was Singaporean, it would be interesting to see which way he would bet=)
posted by le chye at
7:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home