[aeternum]

The problem with Pascal's wager logic is you have to change your behavior based on all kinds of crazy low-probability events. You must worship every god, be an AI-doomer, a climate-doomer, a nuclear-doomer.

Pascal's wager is generally agreed to be logically unsound, so it's somewhat insane that we've revived it in all these modern contexts. If you believe in it, at least be consistent and sacrifice a goat to Zeus every couple years.

[circuit10]

Here’s a video called “Is AI safety a Pascal’s Mugging?”: https://youtu.be/JRuNA2eK7w0

I haven’t watched it back but from what I remember the main point of the video is that kind of situation happens when the probability involved is vanishingly small, and all the events you listed don’t have a vanishingly small probability, so they are not Pascal’s wager situations, just a normal rational safety concerns with particularly high consequences

[pablomalo]

Pascal's wager, as it relates to faith, is based on the premise that there is a lot to win in making the wager --but little to lose. In turn, that second part is grounded in the assumption (right or wrong, I won't judge) that living according to Christian principles brings benefits _in this life also_ to the individual who so chooses.

So it seems a mischaracterization to present the essence of the wager as going out of your way to perform random and costly rites in the hope of lifting any ill omen.

[aeternum]

I disagree. If doing thing x brings benefits, then you have reason to do thing x regardless of the wager. Utilitarianism is sufficient.

The wager is only interesting on those rites where the expected-value is uncertain or unknowable.

[joquarky]

Exactly. For example, what if making such wagers is key in determining that you belong in "hell" for not being genuine?

[johsole]

> living according to Christian principles brings benefits _in this life also_

It does, in this life and the next.

[barbs]

In this case, it's not exactly like Pascal's wager because there is plenty of scientific evidence of disastrous consequences of not believing in climate change (and preparing accordingly). There's no evidence to suggest that a non-belief in God will send you to hell.

[legitster]

Yes, and no. I think we actually do this logic a lot in our lives. Do I actually believe whole wheat bread is better for me, or do I just buy it on the chance it is? Do I go with the cheapest toothpaste or spend money on something that might be better? Do I buy an AWD car on the chance I am stuck?

Sacrificing a goat, after all, does sound like a lot of work. But maybe I will wear a lucky hat to a baseball game?

[conartist6]

There has to be infinite torment in play for the wager to apply too! Thus by conclusion you should only give vengeful gods the benefit of the doubt