My personal response is to be pretty suspicious of this line of reasoning. The outcomes are pretty bizarre, and while I appreciate math, at this point I assume that something went seriously wrong.
But if someone does argue that the line of reasoning makes sense, I’d find it more convincing if they went (what seems like) all the way, and at least chose a Pascal Optimal religion.
If they just go one step and wind up with a religion that was already convenient to themselves for other reasons, I get suspicious.
“Well, there might be almost no chance, but there is some chance. And when you do the math, doesn’t this then check out?”
What is your response to this? Do you ignore the Pascal Optimal religion? If so, what rule do you apply to decide what to ignore or not?
My personal response is to be pretty suspicious of this line of reasoning. The outcomes are pretty bizarre, and while I appreciate math, at this point I assume that something went seriously wrong.
But if someone does argue that the line of reasoning makes sense, I’d find it more convincing if they went (what seems like) all the way, and at least chose a Pascal Optimal religion.
If they just go one step and wind up with a religion that was already convenient to themselves for other reasons, I get suspicious.