An Objection to the Argument for Betting on God. Social Sciences Essay

An Objection to the Argument for Betting on God
Student’s Name
Word Count: 1378
1 Introduction
In Why You Should Bet on God, Korman presents a practical argument for betting on God as our best option because there is an infinite reward. The basic idea behind the argument is that since it costs less to believe in God regardless of whether he exists or not, then betting on God is in our best interest. Korman’s argument is guided by a decision matrix which will be discussed in detail. My goal in this paper is to show that Korman’s argument is unsuccessful because not betting on God is also in our best interest due to the possibility of immense gain if God does not exist. In section 1, I will discuss the argument and the major premises behind it. In section 2, I will discuss my main objection against the argument. In section3, I will respond to the various possible criticisms against my objection.
1 Argument for Betting on God
Professor Korman’s argument takes this form: “The expected utility of believing in God is greater than the expected utility of not believing in God (37).” This argument can be broken down into the following argument basics:
(A1) One should always choose the action with the greatest expected utility
(A2) Believing in God yields greater expected utility when compared to not believing in God
(A3) So, you should choose to believe in God.
The argument can also be presented in the form of a decision matrix as follows:

God exists

God does not exist

Believe in God

Infinite gain

Lose or gain nothing

Do not believe in God

Infinite loss

Lose or gain nothing

Premise A1 posits that it is only rational to choose an option that yields the greatest utility. This is why a decision matrix is crucial in this argument because it helps us determine what options present the greatest infinite value. Accepting A1 is a matter of logic because when making decisions, we consider the options that give us the best outcomes. Korman argues that when deciding whether to believe in God or not, we should make the decision the same way we make decisions about uncertain issues; by taking certain considerations into account (p.32). The existence of God is unknown and therefore, uncertain.
Premise A2 claims that believing in God has a greater influence over not believing in God. This is because by believing in God, “the amount of pleasure and fulfillment you receive in an eternal afterlife in heaven is infinitely greater than what you get in any of the other eventualities (p.37).” Thus, by believing in God, we gain infinitely if God exists and lose nothing if God does not exist. Under the same premise, if we do not believe in God, we lose infinitely if God exists and lose nothing if God does not exist. Therefore, the existence of God gives us greater infinite value, whether in terms of loss or gain, while the non-existence of God does not bring us any infinite value, the status quo remains.
2. Objection against the Betting on God Argument
My argument will focus mainly on A2, which is my main area of concern. As stated earlier, A2 is based on the premise that believing in God has a higher infinity value than not believing in God. Korman assigns the highest score, which is infinite, to the “eventuality in which you believe in God and God does turn out to exist… (p.37).” This claim seems presumptuous because the existence of God is not certain and as such, we are not sure of what will happen, other than what believers say will happen (eternal suffering or eternal happiness). First, it is not nec...