This paper will evaluate the pragmatic argument for God's existence. L. Stafford Betty modifies William James' pragmatic argument for God's existence in his paper "Going Beyond James: A Pragmatic Argument for God's existence." Part I of this paper will focus on Betty's misconceptions regarding evidence and how his argument fails because of these misconceptions. I will demonstrate that is just as likely that God exists as it is that he does not exist in Part II of my paper.

Part I: A Critique of Betty's Pragmatic Argument for God's Existence

In the article, Betty produces a modified version of James' argument (Betty 69). According to Betty, this modified argument is not susceptible to the objections introduced by William Kingdon Clifford or Friedrich Nietzsche (Betty 71).

The first premise of Betty’s argument is: "For any two sets of beliefs R and S which cannot both be true, if R produces more good for those who accept R than S does for those who accept S (all other things being equal), then R is more likely true than S" (Betty 79). Betty acknowledges that there are some objections that could be made to the basic concept of this premise, such as telling a lie to remove one's self from danger (Betty 71). Such a lie is called a "useful fiction" (Betty 72). While Betty is fully aware that such useful fictions might be thought to undermine the entire first premise, he reaches the conclusion that useful fictions are only useful for the short term and have no real long-term impact (Betty 72).

Betty argues that we should reevaluate the first premise and the objections using common sense (Betty 69). He explains that while useful fiction might be used to deceive someone to believe something that is false, there are no lasting effects of the lie on people (Betty 72). An example he gives is telling a child that Santa Claus exists (Betty 72). While the story of Santa Claus is false, it provides immediate satisfaction for the child (Betty 72). When the child is of age to discover that the existence of Santa Claus is indeed false, the child has matured enough mentally not to be distressed by the fact that Santa Claus does not exist (Betty 72). By this age, the belief in Santa Claus is no longer important, thus the news of his non-existence is not stressful (Betty 72). In the end, Betty concluded that "useful fiction" in this case is not useful at all (Betty 72). It is useful to lie to a child about Santa Claus; however, it is useless to lie to an adult (Betty 72).

Betty presents an interesting argument in that using “useful fiction” may be used to deceive people into believing something is false. He explains a case where someone finds out the truth once they have matured. The same could be said for humanity. Let's say humans in general believe that a supernatural being exists. We accept this belief because it is what we are told. However, one day when we “mature,” we might discover for ourselves that it is impossible that this supernatural being exists. In an attempt to explain how belief in Santa Claus as a useful fiction is good, so long as the child is not deceived his or her entire life, Betty actually opens a larger debate against the maturity of the human race. Betty says that Santa Claus may be the closest thing a child has to understanding a benevolent being (Betty 72). It could be said that at our present level of understanding and technology that God is the closest thing we have to understanding human nature and our existence.

Imagine that humanity is a child and that humanity's belief in its existence is based on the same type of evidence as the child's belief in Santa Claus. Now, when humanity (the child) reaches the age of maturity, it is revealed to humanity that it was not created 6,000 years ago, but rather that humanity evolved over time. According to Betty's claim, there would be no repercussions or distress; however, the repercussions of such a discovery are definitely significant. Humanity becomes very distressed over the idea that belief in creation might not be true and there is an internal battle over what to accept. Sometimes, it does not matter what the actual evidence against the belief is, the child will still contemplate the existence or non-existence of Santa Claus the same way humanity is still debating for and against evolution, even though there is a very significant amount of evidence supporting it over the contrary. Humanity has made excuses for why someone should not accept evolution, such as “the devil put those fossils there to deceive us.” Betty’s counter argument in support of premise one fails to prove that useful fiction has only a short term impact, when in fact, many long term repercussions have come from such useful fictions. Belief in God did not cause more good in such a situation, but rather it produced more controversy. The religious belief in God is not producing more good if its useful fiction is no longer useful. Like Betty explained, it is useful to lie to a child about Santa Claus; however, it is useless to lie to an adult (Betty 72). Humanity is now the adult and the useful fiction of God is useless. So if the belief in God is no longer producing more good, then it is false.

Where Betty makes the case that useful fiction is not useful at all, he makes a very different type of pragmatic argument, in that in the end it does not matter if God exists or not, but rather it is better to believe in God's existence since that causes more happiness in our lives. It seems that if the existence of God is a useful fiction, then this fiction is very useful in the long term. However, we know from the evolution debate that creationism is not producing more good because it is hindering scientific development.

Meanwhile, Betty acknowledges the objection made to James' argument which regards lying to a Nazi solder to save a life as being a useful fiction (Betty 73). He states that such an objection does not apply to the belief in God (Betty 73). While the objection holds true for moral concerns, it does not apply to someone's religious beliefs (Betty 73). He argues that lying to a Nazi does not change the Nazi's way of life, while religious beliefs or non-beliefs structure our lives (Betty 73).

In the second premise, Betty alters James' second premise to appeal to "understanding" and "tolerance" for the divine to avoid the problem of religious fanaticizes (Betty 79). The second premise, therefore, reads like this: "More good comes to people living out of a set of religious beliefs R that foster tolerance especially including a generic understanding of divine reality, than out of an opposing set of purely secular beliefs S” (Betty 79).

Betty provides statistics collected from various studies in support of this premise (Betty 74-76). These statistics show that people who are religious live happier, healthier lives (Betty 74-76). However, this evidence is limited. Gregory S. Paul states these statistics are based on “assumption, anecdotal accounts, and on studies of limited scope and quality restricted to one population” (Paul 1). Paul demonstrates that the United States is exceptional, in terms of its wealth and religious beliefs (Paul 7). He points out that many European nations continue to be successful, even though there is an increase in secularism (Paul 6). A link between higher frequency of religious belief and higher frequencies of homicide, juvenile and young adult death rates, sexually transmitted diseases, teen pregnancy, and abortion in wealthy democracies (Paul 6). Also, the more religious south and mid-west portions of the United States experiences higher frequencies of these same problems than the secular northeast (Paul 7). Betty’s statistics are limited to the good of a religious person in the United States and does not take into account the success of more secular industrial nations in Europe, who are experiencing an equivocal amount of good (Paul 5). Betty fails to prove that religious belief triumphs in goodness over secular beliefs.

One of the statistics implies that people who are deeply committed Christians are more accepting, charitable, and happy than the average person (Betty 76). They may in fact be happier and more accepting, but it could also be possible that they do not understand the opposite point of view. Take for example an uneducated person who is totally devoted to Christianity and believes that statements made in the Bible are true. This person may accept the fact his or her child may believe in evolution rather than creation, but does not realize that evolution directly challenges his or her beliefs. Also, this same person may live out his or her entire life without realizing that many of his or her beliefs are contradictory. While this person is more accepting, charitable, and happy, this person is completely ignorant of the fact that creation can be disproved. Basically, as the cliché states: “Ignorance is bliss.” In this situation, creationism causes more good than belief in evolution. According to premise one, creationism should be true in this case; however, it is not. This objection may only apply to people who are deeply committed.

Meanwhile, Betty does acknowledge the fact that some people who are religious do not live happier lives (76-77). People who are intolerant and exclusive in their religious beliefs have committed wars and persecution against those who are not like them (Betty 77). This type of belief leads to superiority, which is not good (Betty 77). Betty proposes that people follow a “generic” path in regards to religion (Betty 77). He states that if people accept other people's points of view about religion as equally valid as their own, then they lead much happier lives (Betty 78).

Betty's promotion of tolerance is probably the most significant claim in his argument. Not only does he acknowledge the objection that religious fanatics have actually caused more harm than good, but he provides a response regarding tolerance that seems to hold true for most purposes. If religious people truly understand the point of view of others and take a generic stand on religion, then it is completely possible for everyone, including atheists, to live happier, healthier lives with or without religion.

Betty offered several good examples of religious intolerance. However, he neglected to include the most profound episode of religious intolerance: the prosecution of Christians, during the beginnings of Christianity. Jesus himself suffered from religious intolerance. It follows that a Christian should be tolerant of other religious beliefs. However, with complete devotion to the religion, there is no room for tolerance if that religion is exclusive. Betty adopts a generic point of view of religious beliefs to promote tolerance of other religions.

By placing an emphasis on a generic point of view in premise two, Betty creates a problem for the argument. Premise one states “any” set of religious beliefs that causes more good is most likely true, not just a generic point of view (Betty 79). In premise two, Betty only emphasizes a generic point of view by stating, “especially including a generic understanding of divine reality” (Betty 79). Betty is not consistent with his argument. He does not make the generic point of view exclusive, but rather he just emphasizes it. According the premises, hardcore religious beliefs may still be true, just as long as they are tolerant.

Betty acknowledges that an atheist may live out a happy life, though he argues that in general, according to pollsters, religious people live better lives (Betty 80). According to the surveys, this may be so. However, the ratio of atheists to religious people is fairly small in the general population. Thus, there are fewer atheists to study. Again, the relativity of the word “good” comes into question. There might be a qualitative difference in what an atheists considers good than what a traditional theist considers more.

There is also a challenge as to whether individual happiness affects the overall happiness of society (Betty 80). Betty seems to support his claim that if the majority of the people are happy, then the society as a whole is happy (Betty 80). This is true if the happiness of society is determined by the happiness of the people, assuming that is the case.

Betty conclusion states: "Therefore R is more likely true than S" (Betty 76). He claims that good outcomes are the results of believing facts, and misfortunes are the results of misunderstanding the facts (Betty 76). However, we know that the objections previously stated dispute this conclusion.

Part II: An Argument For the Likelihood of God’s Existence and Non-existence

An argument may be made that it is just as likely that God exists as it is that God does not exist:
• P1: If there is just as much evidence supporting religious beliefs T as there is to support no religious beliefs A, then religious beliefs T is just as likely as religious beliefs A.
• P2: There is just as much evidence to support religious belief in God's existence as there is to support belief in God's non-existence.
• C: The belief that God exists is just as likely as the belief that God does not exist.

If T and A each produce the same amount of evidence in support of each of their claims, then they are equally likely. Since the evidence for each claim is equal, one cannot be more probable than the other. In other words, both claims are likely to be true. However in the end, if they are contradictory, then only one true claim can be fact. Thus, this argument is inductively cogent, since both do not have enough evidence to prove their claim to be fact.

Before proceeding with the argument, there are a few terms that need to be defined. Religious beliefs are the beliefs of any person who believes in some sort of divine power, in any sense. No religious belief refers to atheists and agnostics. People who have religious beliefs will be referred to as believers, while atheists and agnostics will be referred to as nonbelievers. There is also a distinction between a truthful statement and a factual statement. A truthful statement is the result of an argument based upon true premises. A factual statement is a description of reality.

In premise one, religious beliefs and non-religious beliefs are challenged to determine if they produce the same amount of evidence for their claims. In this case, the strength of either case is the amount of evidence collected to support its claims. Since no more evidence is presented for one over the other, then both claims are possible.

In this case, we are determining if the amount and quality of evidence in support of both claims is equivalent. Both sides have their good points and their bad points, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that both believers and nonbelievers produce the same amount and quality of evidence for their religious beliefs or lack thereof. If this is the case, then it is just as likely that the religious beliefs of the believers are just as likely as the lack of religious beliefs of the nonbelievers to be true.

Take a coin for example. It is a fact that the coin could land on either heads or tails. It is just as likely true that the coin will land on heads as it will land on tails. Without knowing the outcome, we can make verifiable claims as to how the coin will land. Only after we know on which side the coin lands can we establish a claim as a fact.

In premise two, the evidence supporting either claim is taken into account. In order for one claim to be more true than the other, more than 50% of the evidence must support that claim and the evidence must meet some standard of quality. First off, there is no physical evidence supporting either claim. The physical evidence in support of God’s existence is controversial. Take for instance the Shroud of Turin. Even if the Shroud was the burial cloth of Jesus, this does not prove that God exists. It only proves that Jesus existed. If God is spiritual and transcendental, then God cannot exist within a physical world. There is no physical proof that God came down from heaven and spoke to humans. All claims of experiencing God can be physically explained through modern science. Religious experiences may be hallucinations. There is even evidence that our notion of something supernatural is linked to brain chemicals (“The God Gene,” 2004). Since physical evidence is controversial, perhaps the proof or disproof of God's existence lies in philosophical arguments. Philosophers have been trying to explain religious beliefs since the beginning of philosophy in ancient Greece. There are infinite amounts of arguments to support either claim, some of which do not hold much value, and others which are considerably better. However, there is no perfect argument that has been fashioned to prove either God's existence or non-existence. If a perfect, logical, irrefutable argument for God’s existence or not existence existed, then there would be no controversy surrounding the issue. Yet again, the proof of religious beliefs remains equally divided. There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God using physical evidence or philosophy. Therefore, the evidence surrounding God's existence or non-existence is inconclusive. There is not enough evidence to prove which claim is fact. In this case, we have made two legitimate claims: God exists or God does not exist. Given our definition of truth as a legitimate claim, both claims are possible until more evidence supporting one or the other or evidence of higher quality is presented.

Trying to prove God's existence is like trying to prove that love exists. We can witness the acts of love, but we cannot witness love itself. Love is an emotional state that we experience; similarly, God is an abstract idea. Both love and God are non-physical. You cannot prove God's existence through the performance of miracles or other acts of God. Although, when we witness the act of love, we usually know where the love is coming from. For example, when a boy buys his girlfriend flowers, that is an act of love. We do know that the act of love is coming from him, since he is the one who bought the flowers. Some people label a hurricane as an act of God. If that is so, then the hurricane comes from nature, since natural forces come together to form the storm. However, we do not know if there is a God controlling that storm and directing it anyplace.

Whether the boy, who bought the flowers for his girlfriend, actually loves his girlfriend or not is unknown. He may say he does, but we do not know for sure. He may also express love physically, like when his pupils dilate. However, when we are in the presence of someone we hate, our pupils dilate as well. Every physical attribute of love is an act rather than love itself.

Also, just because a hurricane directly hit a certain area does not mean that someone is controlling the storm. Similarly, just because the boy buys the girl flowers does not mean he loves her. He could feel any number of emotions for her, including hate. It is just as likely that he likes the girl as it is that he hates her. If that is true, then it is likely that two contradictory abstract ideas exist to explain the same phenomenon. This explains how no physical evidence can be provided to prove or disprove God's existence.

It is difficult to prove that love exists or that God exists. We know that love exists because we experience it personally, whereas only a third of humanity has experienced God personally. In order for us to experience love, a few neutrons in our brain fire and we feel the emotion of love. Love starts inside us and captivates us, whereas God is something separate from us. We can define love and prove love because it is part of us, but God is somewhere else.

It is established that out of two opposing ideas, one is just as likely to be true as the other, especially when there is no hard evidence proving either outcome. There is no evidence to support that one religion is more correct then another religion. Similarly, there is no evidence to confirm that any belief in God's existence is correct, nor any conclusive evidence to confirm that no belief in God's existence is correct.

Betty, L. Stafford. (2001). Going Beyond James: A Pragmatic Argument for God’s Existence. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 49(2), 69-84.

Day, Elizabeth. The God Gene. (2004, November 1). The Washington Times. http://washingtontimes.com/world/20041114-111404-8087r.htm

Paul, Gregory S. (2005). Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies. Journal of Religion & Society, 7. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html