And so you get "methods" that are sold to people on promises of "analyzing past lottery drawings", "horse racing prediction software", personal methods based on statistical ignorance (such as the "it's due for a win" fallacy), and so on. To a certain extent, stock market predictions enter in this category also, at least the fraudulent ones. Of course, this is all hogwash, and demonstrably doesn't do better than chance. Wagers and lotteries are ultimately negative-sum games : if no new money is entered in the system, then the participants will lose on average.
One famous example of a wager, in theology, is Pascal's Wager. I hope you all know what Pascal's Wager is - basically, the idea that we should believe in God because we stand to benefit if we're right, but have much to lose if we're wrong. Many atheists have commented on the impudence of treating religious belief as a mere wager, instead of the belief system that it really is. It assumes that normal people could simply "place a bet" on God in the same way that one throws dice. Others comment on the displeasure God must feel at seeing people believe in it out of such an impulse. Surely God can see that someone's belief is not heartfelt ?
And if it does not matter to God at all, then why become part of the "faithful" ? One might as well live as a practical atheist, as many Christians already do, drop by the church every Sunday and cultivate the sweet feeling of good Christian guilt after lusting for another woman, and give no thought to living "the Christian way". Likewise, one might decide that the best religion to choose is that which has the best Heaven and the worst Hell, in accordance with the wager's benefits and losses. If we should believe in God because we'll go to Heaven and prevent going to Hell, then shouldn't we a forteriori be much more inclined to believe in Allah, which offers an even better Heaven and a much worse Hell ?
Go To Page: 1 2
