Argument from inconsistent revelations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2008) |
The argument from inconsistent revelations, also known as the avoiding the wrong hell problem, is an argument against the existence of God. It asserts that it is unlikely that God exists because many theologians and faithful adherents have produced conflicting and mutually exclusive revelations. Since a person not privy to revelation must either accept it or reject it based solely upon the authority of its proponent, and there is no way for a mere mortal to resolve these conflicting claims by investigation, it is prudent to reserve one's judgment.
The argument is also used to demonstrate the difficulty the existence of any one God without personal revelation; most arguments for the existence of God are not specific to any one religion and could be applied to any religion with equal validity. Acceptance of any one religion thus requires a rejection of the others, and when faced with these competing claims in the absence of a personal revelation, it is difficult to decide amongst them. Were a personal revelation to be granted to a nonbeliever, the same problem of confusion would develop in each new person the believer shared the revelation with.
Christians believe that Jesus is the savior of the world and the son of God; Jews believe just as strongly that he is not. Similarly, Muslims believe that the Qur'an was divinely authored, while Jews and Christians do not. There are many examples of such contrasting views, indeed, opposing fundamental beliefs (schisms) exist even within each major religion. Christianity, for example, has countless subsets, not all of which are mutually compatible.
In mathematical terms, if there are a number (n) of equally viable inconsistent faiths one could believe in, each with a corresponding hell, the probability (p) of having chosen to practice the correct one by making Pascal's Wager is represented as p = 1 / n. Therefore, if there are five mutually exclusive faiths, there is an 80% chance that an incorrect religion was chosen and the believer will go to the correct religion's Hell rather than its Heaven. In practice, there are hundreds of religions in existence, making it a greater than 99% chance that an incorrect choice will be made.
[edit] Appearances
The argument appears, among other places, in Voltaire's Candide and Philosophical Dictionary. It is also manifested in Denis Diderot's statement that, whatever proofs are offered for the existence of God in Christianity or any other religion, "an Imam can reason the same way".[1]
In a humorous reference to Pascal's wager and its criticisms, Homer Simpson once pointed this out to his wife Marge, "But Marge, what if we picked the wrong religion? Every week, we're just making God madder and madder!".[2]
[edit] See also
[edit] Notes
- ^ Diderot, Denis (1875-77) [1746]. J. Assézar. ed (in French). Pensées philosophiques, LIX, Volume 1. pp. 167.
- ^ BBC News Magazine, The Simpsons as philosophy
