Pascals Wager was already stupid in the 17th century

The broad existential question was interesting. It's part of a conversation about tail risks and cost-benefit calculations that you can apply to much more than just religion.

What I find more curious about Pascal's Wager, from a theological perspective, is the logical consequence. Namely, that you're obligated to find some kind of theological average between all known religious practices to maximize your own personal safety. And that theological average largely boils down to generic positive aphorisms -

• Do Unto Others
• Live Charitably
• Value Your Own Life And The Lives Of Others
• Reject Base Cravings
• Abhor Materialist Social Hierarchies
• Turn The Other Cheek
• Men Are More Important Than Women
• Slaughter A Live Animal To Appease Primal Forces
• Wash Your Asshole
• Remember That Old People Are Smarter Than You

Shit we should already know about and are inclined towards anyway. When you take a holistic view of religious studies, it peels away the pastiche and reveals the common truths of human existence. And Pascal's Wager, as a thought experiment, helps navigate people to this point from an abstract logical framework.