Ah, but Pascal’s wager is not about being an adamant atheist and then becoming a Christian to cover bets, so we aren’t talking about what Hitchens was talking about.
I’ll ask again: How is it that a person who is unsure whether there is a God or not is cowardly or intellectually inferior for betting in a way that prevents them from suffering the worst possible catastrophic failure?
If betting there’s a God is cowardly and/or dumb instead of a smart bet, then so is buying homeowner’s insurance.
Since you have turned the Wager on its head, I must not have made my post clear to you. Paschal’s wager is about faith in God. So here it is, from the cite you posted:
“Pascal’s Wager (or Pascal’s Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal that, even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingy has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.”
My point, again, is that a christian “hedging his/her bets” by expressing belief, prayer, partaking of communion, attending services, but so insecure in faith that they acknowledge to themselves (if no one else) that at least they haven’t wasted their time doing all those things, at least they had good lives/were upright law-abiding citizens (if they were) et cetera, and so on ...
Well, as far as religious faith goes that’s certainly a weak brew wouldn’t you say? I would say that it is not only cowardly but absurd: “I believe this, I truly do—but also, I don’t believe.” (I say this admitting I enjoy rolling the dice.)
However, you do raise an interesting logical corollary: for an atheist to say to himself and the world, “This is what I believe and I have no `fallback plan,’ or deathbed fear of hell confession to make.
Which position requires greater courage? What do you think of Hitchen’s statement that Paschal’s Wager is “religious hucksterism”?