Pascal was a clever man, but his 'wager' was really just a distortion, misapplication of cost/benefit analysis.
I wear a seat belt because, though unlikely, in the event of an accident, seatbelts have been demonstrated to offer some protection. Without those conditions I would be credulous to wear seatbelts.
If for instance, my mother told me that carrying a St. Christopher medal would protect me in an accident. Pascal would suggest it is logical to carry it. Many people do just that, rationalizing that is not worth the risk not to carry one. They are not being logical; they are afraid and intellectually lazy.
Pascals, wager cannot be applied to the myriad of contradicting supernatural claims of mystics and gurus. It fails to analyze the credibility or accuracy of claims made. It merely assumes the possibility of value without making an intellectually honest assessment of it. As such the 'wager' applies equally to every supernatural claim.
Those who reason that Pascal's wager compels them to be a JW, had better consider the wager equally suggests they ought be practicing Hindu or Muslim, or Branch Davidian etc. In fact the wager suggests we do them all.
-
Yes Pascal’s wager can be applied to anything, it’s all about the choices you make.
PeacefulPete you are right that it needs careful thought and then you make a decision based on what you know. Wearing a seatbelt is a wager that you may have wasted your time putting it on but my personal choice is that it’s worth the wager when you look at the cost benefit ratio and the chances of you regretting your wager.
Carrying a medal for good luck or protecting yourself, yes you could say it’s a wager not to carry it because you think that’s all nonsense but looking at the cost benefit ratio I would be happy to take the wager that it’s not worth carrying it.
The wager that evolution was the origin of life rather than intelligent design is nearer the seatbelt than the medal for risk to reward and maybe regret your wager in the future