Believing in God Has The Same Expected Utility As Not Believing in God

My aim is to address the argument for betting on God.
The Argument for Betting on God
(BG1) One should always choose the option with the greatest expected utility (BG2) Believing in God has a greater expected utility than not believing in God (BG3) So you should believe in God

Here’s the idea behind the first premise of the argument. Suppose you’re a competitive athlete and have a race coming up. You have one week left of practice and you really want to do well at your race. At the same time, you don’t know if the training is worth it, because your chances of winning are not that high. So, you have two options: train hard and compete with a possibility of getting a podium, or don’t compete and avoid all the wasted energy and stress. If you choose to train and compete, you will either win and your hard work will pay off, or you will lose. If you choose to not compete at all, you won’t need to go through strenuous training but lose every possibility of getting a podium. But by choosing to train for your race, you have absolutely nothing to lose. Even if you don’t win, you still gain the experience and preparation for your next race, which you wouldn’t get otherwise. So, you should choose the option to train hard and compete, because it has the greatest expected utility. It’s in one’s favour to always choose the option that will benefit them the most. Suffering is unpleasant, which is why everyone prefers to take actions that have a positive outcome on them. It doesn’t make sense to ever choose an option that will cause you more harm than the other option would.

The idea behind the second premise of the argument is that you receive more benefits from believing in God than not believing in God. In other words, you’ve got absolutely nothing to lose by believing in God. You can only gain the best possible outcome. That is because if you believe in God and God turns out to exist, the expected utility is infinite. You will go to heaven and experience the best possible afterlife you can. And then, if you believe in God and God turns out to not exist, you still haven’t lost anything. Not believing in God, on the other hand, might result in the same or lower gain of benefits. If you don’t believe in God and God turns out to not exist, that’s great, you proved believers wrong, but still didn’t gain anything that will benefit you. If you don’t believe in God and God turns out to exist, that’s when you lose, because you will not get the benefits that God gives to believers (heaven). Here’s the probability matrix the author uses to justify BG2:

   

My plan is to challenge premise BG2 by showing that disbelief in God has the same expected utility as belief in God. Specifically, I will show that disbelievers will not be deprived of heaven and other potential benefits of the afterlife and will receive the same outcomes as believers, in case God exists. In section two I will present my criticism for BG2 and then in section three I will anticipate and address an objection to my criticism.

My Defence Against The Argument for Betting on God

Belief in God doesn’t have a greater expected utility than disbelief in God. Even if God turns out to exist, believers and disbelievers get the same outcome. That is because God loves unconditionally all of his creations no matter if they have faith in Him or not. It’s similar to the way a parent loves their child. No matter how many times you disrespect or disappoint your parents, they still love you. Maybe they don’t like you or respect you, but they always love you, because it’s in their nature. Even if a human doesn’t believe in God, they are still God’s creation. One’s faith doesn’t change their nature and what God has prepared for them in the afterlife. Instead, the criteria for entering either heaven or hell are based on one’s character throughout their life.

I would argue that everyone goes to heaven, since God’s love is unconditional. But God cannot be that generous. And since religion is based on both a heaven and a hell, there must be some criteria for hell too. That’s why my argument is premised under the assumption that good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell.

Regarding that this assumption is true, being good doesn’t refer to believers and being bad doesn’t refer to disbelievers. There can still be bad believers and good disbelievers, which is why faith cannot determine one’s consequence after they die. For example, between a believer that has committed murder and a disbeliever that spent their life doing community service, the disbeliever deserves to enter heaven, not the believer. Of course, there can still be good believers and bad disbelievers, but that would just be a coincidence with no correlation whatsoever.

Furthermore, the author says that you’ve got nothing to lose by believing in God. However, the author also failed to take into account that belief is a huge commitment that involves devotion. A person that is devoted to God spends most of their life going to church, praying, avoiding committing sins, and following religious principles. Even though every religious person offers a different amount of time to God, it is still some part of their time that they ‘lose’. Whether it’s praying three hours a day or one hour a week, it’s still wasted time. What a disappointment it would be for a believer to finally get to heaven and realize how many disbelievers are also there, even though they didn’t go to church every Sunday.

Addressing an Objection to My Criticism

A possible objection to my argument might be that it is unfair for believers to get the same outcome as disbelievers. Part of my argument is the exact reason why: believers devoted a significant amount of time and energy throughout their life to praise God. God could not possibly ever disregard all the prayers, church visits, and dependency that so many humans went through only for Him. Disbelievers did nothing to deserve an afterlife of happiness. Even if a disbeliever is a good person, this doesn’t change the fact that by not believing they showed doubt and disrespect toward God.

My reply to that objection would be that God doesn’t want our belief to be formed out of
fear. Faith doesn’t serve as a way of “giving back” so that God will reward us with heaven and not send us to Hell. Since God doesn’t want us to be afraid, He also doesn’t expect us to be devoted to Him, which shows that he is not expecting anything more from disbelievers and excuses them for not having faith. Believing in God or not is your free decision. Sending disbelievers to hell for choosing not to have faith in God is basically punishing a person for having free will.

Conclusion

I have argued that believing in God and not believing in God have the same expected utility. I defended the idea that God loves all humans and doesn’t send unfaithful humans to hell. I then showed that the criteria for heaven are based on one’s character and not on one’s faith. And I also showed that you have something to lose by believing in God and God turns out to not exist. Lastly, I addressed possible objections to my argument by saying that God respects our decisions and doesn’t want us to believe out of fear.