Pascal's Wager

What a hunk.

"Pascal's Wager" is an argument in favor of God's existence, trumped by Christian philosopher Blaise Pascal in the 17th century. He argues that no matter if a person believes there to be a god or not, one should believe in it anyway because if there happens to be a god then it would be better to be a believer when it comes time to "meet your (so-called) maker"-- as a sort of safety precaution. It's better to believe because it's a win-win! If there's no god, no harm no foul. If there is, you're gonna have some 'splainin to do at the pearly gates.

If I recall correctly, Richard Dawkins, a noted evolutionary biologist and outspoken atheist, makes a pretty good argument for how inane this "wager" is in his book, The God Delusion. He says something along the lines of, "Would a god rather you pretended to believe in him to gain his favor or lived your life virtuously so that a god could be proud of his creation? But then again, what if you choose the wrong god? Then you come into all sorts of issues." In the end, it's a ridiculous justification for religious belief.

Fortunately, this is not a common justification many people use today for religious belief. (Well, actually, I was friends with this kid who used this as a reason for his religious belief which kind of stunned me, but it was obvious he hadn't thought too much about it. Not that kids should have to, but you know.) But if this was the best they had going for them in the 1600s, the old times were not the best times.