Even a logically airtight Wager can serve as post-hoc rationalization of prior belief

Evidence

In mathematical terms, believing in God is the ‘super-dominant’ strategy. After all, even if you are a sceptic and assume that the probability of God existing is tiny, tiny times infinite heavenly benefits is still an infinite benefit, which looks rather attractive compared to infinite hellfire. But did Pascal sincerely believe in his own logical proof, or did he recruit his remarkable appetite for maths to justify a new – more religious – view of the world that he deemed much more appealing? Pascal’s wager appeared about three years after his sudden conversion and the presumed gains and losses are clearly derived from a Christian understanding of God. Pascal was in fact known to be a Christian apologetic – that is, someone who worked on the intellectual justification of religion. — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 100

Categorization

• XREF: Previews the chapter’s core motivated reasoning thesis — reasoning recruited in service of desired conclusions. — connects to: Belief systems respond to contrary evidence by discounting the evidence; Logic tests the validity of propositions after value judgments drive decisions — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 95; Selecting a major premise depends on value judgments rather than strict logic — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 431 (+5 more)
• SEED: Angle for an essay: the Wager as an early worked example of motivated reasoning — even pure mathematics can be bent to what we find appealing.

Broader Connections

• Pascal’s Wager treats belief in God as a rational expected-value gamble #expands (0.85) — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 99
• Speculative intimacies are anxious wagers offering scant hope against uncertainty #jokes-about (0.80)
• Logic tests the validity of propositions after value judgments drive decisions #complicates (0.78) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 95
• Belief systems respond to contrary evidence by discounting the evidence #qualifies (0.75)
• Correct prior knowledge does not shield people from the illusory truth effect #exemplifies (0.72) — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 68
• Fighting post-truth requires doubting one’s own favored beliefs first #complicates (0.72) — Lee McIntyre, Post-Truth, 330
• Saying anything requires a contingent positional wager inside language #expands (0.72)
• Selecting a major premise depends on value judgments rather than strict logic #exemplifies (0.70) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 431