The viewpoint you mentioned is often associated with a philosophical concept known as "Pascal's Wager." Blaise Pascal, a French philosopher, mathematician, and theologian, proposed this idea in the 17th century. The wager suggests that when considering the existence of God, individuals should behave as if God exists, regardless of their actual beliefs, because the potential benefits of believing in God and leading a virtuous life are infinite (eternal salvation), while the potential losses are finite (a life lived according to moral principles).
Here's a breakdown of the reasoning behind Pascal's Wager:
God's existence is uncertain: Pascal acknowledged that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven conclusively through reason or empirical evidence. Therefore, he argued that the question of God's existence is essentially a bet or a wager.
Infinite gain vs. finite loss: Pascal argued that if you believe in God and live a virtuous life, the potential reward (eternal salvation or heaven) is infinite in value. On the other hand, if God does not exist, the only loss you experience is the finite pleasures or indulgences you might have given up in favor of virtuous living.
Cost-benefit analysis: From a purely rational standpoint, when faced with the uncertainty of God's existence, the potential infinite gain of eternal life outweighs any temporary pleasures or benefits one might derive from living a life devoid of virtuous principles.
Ethical considerations: Pascal emphasized that even if God's existence cannot be proven, leading a virtuous life is still morally praiseworthy and beneficial for society. It promotes compassion, kindness, and a sense of responsibility for one's actions and their impact on others.
It's important to note that while Pascal's Wager presents a thought-provoking argument, it has been met with criticism and counterarguments over the centuries. Some common criticisms include:
Problem of multiple gods: Pascal's Wager assumes that there is either one God or no God. If multiple gods are possible, believing in one may incur the wrath of others.
Authentic belief: Critics argue that belief in God cannot simply be a pragmatic choice. True belief is often considered to be a matter of genuine conviction rather than a calculated bet.
Which God to believe in: The wager doesn't address the question of which specific conception of God one should believe in, as different religions propose different concepts and attributes of God.
Moral dilemmas: The wager might encourage belief for selfish reasons rather than sincere faith or genuine moral integrity.
Ultimately, whether someone chooses to adopt Pascal's Wager as a guiding principle depends on their individual philosophical stance and approach to questions of faith and belief. Some atheists might find value in the ethical and moral principles associated with belief in God, even if they don't accept God's existence as a matter of empirical certainty. Others may have different reasons for their beliefs and behaviors, unrelated to Pascal's Wager.