[ExI] Pascal's wager

[Tara Maya]

The argument works better with unicorns. As far as I know, there are no downsides to believing in unicorns.

> On May 4, 2021, at 9:40 AM, Ben via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> 
> On 01/05/2021 23:04, Spike commented:
>> Perhaps you know of Pascal’s Wager, where the philosopher (who discovered a whole buttload of cool math (and so is forever on my list of people who can do no wrong)) expounded on how humans make a win-draw bet on the existence of god.  If they choose to believe and are right, then good.  If they choose to believe and are wrong, then nothing happens, so what the “hell” difference does it make?  It’s a win-draw bet, ja?
> 
> Nein.
> 
> It's a non-starter, because first, which god do you choose to believe in? Choosing the wrong one could be just as disastrous as choosing none, if there were a god or gods. And considering how many gods we've invented over the millennia (a LOT), the odds are overwhelmingly in favour of choosing the wrong one.
> 
> Additionally, being a believer almost always comes along with restrictive rules on how you should live your life, so depending on which religion you bet on, you could lose a lot in the way of enjoyable, educational and otherwise positive experiences, and gain a lot in the way of miserable, guilty and fearful ones. Not to mention being an active contributor to holding back human development generally (this applies whether gods exist or not).
> 
> But I'm sure most of us on this list know this already.
> 
> -- 
> Ben Zaiboc
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat