Here's my take on it: knowledge isn't 100% certain, and we can't say with perfect certainty that god(s) do or don't exist, but that doesn't mean we're completely ignorant. We do have plenty of information to use as the basis for conclusions, and even though we recognize that they're philosophically tentative pending perfect knowledge, we can still recognize that some positions are reasonable and others aren't, and we can still form valid, defensible, and practically certain conclusions based on the evidence at hand.You're right. The most rational position is held by those who freely admit they don't know. Anyone who makes claims that they KNOW the TRUTH about the universe, where it came from and if there is anything after death are full of it. Period. Thats my take on it.
It's also based on the premise that non-Christians can't possibly be saved, which doesn't even work under the Catholic beliefs that Pascal was assuming for his Wager.No, it doesn't. It's based on the premise that Christianity is the only alternative to atheism, which is obviously false.
I think you present a false dichotomy. In my experience, being right generally produces less suffering than being wrong. IMO, the "comfortable" in "wrong and comfortable" is usually temporary and gets outweighted by even greater discomfort later on.One last question, which is better, to be right and suffer or to be wrong and comfortable? Perhaps you chose the former for yourself, but what about your loved ones? If they where about to die and was having a hard time dealing with the situation, would you lie to give them comfort as they draw their last breath?
Let me put it this way... say your bank gave you a choice: when you withdraw money from your chequing account at the ATM, you can have the machine tell you your actual account balance or tell you that your balance is a million dollars. Which would you prefer?
Would you have more fun if you thought you had a spare million dollars just lying around? You probably would, at least temporarily... but reality would bite you pretty quickly.
Fine for the dying child himself (maybe - actually, I'm not sure it is), but that's not where the effects of this sort of tactic end.You put me to task.
OK, imagine a situation where a young child has cancer and is suffering a painful death. The child cries out and says, " I never got to grow up and have a family of my own, is this all the life I get?".
Do I need to explain more? This child could be comforted with the hope of an afterlife and to see their family and friends again.
For instance, think of that child's sister: who do you think is more likely to one day devote their life to stopping this from happening again by working to find a cure for that cancer? A girl who thinks that dying from cancer is part of a good God's plan and really means that the person who dies from cancer moves on to an eternal life of happiness, or a girl who thinks that dying from cancer is a horrible waste of a human life, and something that's entirely suffering with no good in it at all?
IMO, comfort breeds complacency.
Also, more often than not, questions of faith aren't a matter of deathbed comfort to a child who has no responsibility anyhow. Our beliefs inform our actions, and for good or bad, the things you teach a child will generally have effects in the wider world. I think we have a responsibility to teach children good things. I can understand a parent teaching their child about a religion that the parent sincerely believes to be true, but in general, I would not consider it a good thing for a parent to teach a child something that the parent thinks is "wrong but comforting".
That child on his deathbed: you wouldn't have held off on teaching him about God and Heaven until you knew for sure that he was going to die, would you?