This article is the first in a series designed to show the flaws of certain arguments of apologetics. My reasons for doing so can be seen in my previous article.

One favorite story of mine is an apocryphal story that vets of many wars will swear was true of at least one man in their unit. The man wears a star of david, a crescent, a yin/yang symbol and every symbol of faith he can find. He goes to worship of every faith he can find. His rationalization is that, in the event he is killed in battle, he will go to heaven (I always thought an interesting story could be developed around such a soldier being condemned because he got every religion but the "right" one...but I digress). This rationalization, in a nutshell is in line with what is known as Pascal's wager (named for the mathemetician/philosopher Blaise Pascal). The idea is that the consequences of unbelief (eternal damnation) are greater if religion is true than are the consequences of belief (and end of all things) if religion is untrue.

Pascal's wager provides an interesting starting point for theological discussion, but that's about it. Any faith based on Pascal's wager is, in my contention, not "faith" at all, but rather well developed superstition. You could similarly argue throwing spilled salt over your left shoulder based on the idea that it certainly could do no harm.

This argument, while patently obvious, is still heavily used by many evangelicals. It is not an argument FOR faith of any kind, but AGAINST unbelief. And an argument against unbelief has its basis in the negative (the consequences of unbelief) rather than the positive (the rewards of belief).

Feel free to add your own comments on this argument.