The concept of God and divinity has been the basis of numerous social, religious, and philosophical discourses throughout human civilization. Indeed, theorists such as Lewis Vaughn have contributed to the ongoing debates by providing their perspectives about the subject matter. In Philosophy Here and Now, Vaughn (2019) offers powerful insights regarding the morality underlying religious and spiritual belief in a divine being. The author seems to suggest that it is morally permissible to believe in God just because it is to one’s practical advantage.

This point of view is well illustrated when Vaughn explains his perspective regarding modern-day Christians. He argues that “Current-day Christians use violence to spread their right-to-life message” (p. 44). He cites the violent demonstrations and unconventional protests that characterize Christian opposition to abortion and Planned Parenthood issues. Indeed, this shows that contemporary believers believe in God just because they deem it practically advantageous to do so. In this case, society may view it as morally permissible to believe in God in light of the perceived benefits.

Using the material in Vaughn’s book, it is possible to highlight Pascal’s argument regarding the morality of believing in God. As such, the author states that Pascal’s argument is based on the role of our nonintellectual nature. According to the discussion, our nonintellectual nature has a significant effect on our convictions (p. 101). In light of this, our volitions and passions influence our perspective on the belief in God.

Pascal’s argument for believing in God maintains that modern faith is superficial and not informed by spirituality. It is an opinion highlighted clearly when the author explains that contemporary faith is based more on “masses and holy water” (p. 102). It is another point confirming that the moral belief in God is subject to practical advantages.

Vaughn’s book identifies and cites other thinkers who provide alternative perspectives concerning the belief in God. For example, Clifford advises us to “keep (our) minds in suspense forever, rather than closing it on insufficient evidence and incur the…risk of…lies” (p. 102). In this way, it will be easier for us to base our belief in God on rational, logical reasons substantiated with facts and evidence instead of practical advantages.

One strength of Clifford’s argument is that it proposes a plausible solution to ensuring that we believe in the truth rather than a lie. Also, alternative thinking encourages people to seek information before making decisions. Nonetheless, Clifford fails to realize that keeping our minds in suspense can also expose us to more lies.

The argument against believing in God without sufficient evidence focuses on the need to ensure we seek information before settling on a definite belief. It is plausible that God would look kindly on atheists and agnostics because they refuse to believe without evidence. It is crucial to acknowledge that God does not consider one’s beliefs; instead, he looks at our hearts. Therefore, it is reasonable that atheists and the agnostics may be favored due to their upright personalities and not be condemned for the lack of blind faith.

God has given each one of us the gift of reason that we must apply to our thinking and decision making. It informs the perspective that atheists and agnostics, who may apply their reasoning, receive more favor from God than blind believers. Ultimately, our hearts, morals, actions, and behavior count more regarding our spirituality than we believe.