The philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-62) made what many regard as the first decision analysis as part of an argument for living a Christian life. The question whether God exists is an ancient one in philosophy. Pascal asked whether it was worthwhile for people to live a Christian life — as though they were believers — in the hope of attaining eternal life. In answering this question, Pascal argued, in essence, that the Christian God either does exist or does not.

If God exists, and if you live the Christian life, you will be saved — which has nearly infinite utility to you. If God exists, and if you do not live the Christian life, you will be damned — an event whose negative utility is also large. If God does not exist, and if you live a Christian life, you lose at most a little worldly pleasure compared to what you would get otherwise.

The basic argument was that the expectation of living the Christian life was higher than that of living otherwise, almost without regard to the probability of God’s existence. Not to live the Christian life is to take a risk of an eternity in hell, in exchange for a little extra worldy pleasure.

(i typed that whole damn excerpt out, so you’d better have read it and got the gist.)

i hate it when things make me think, and when my little philosophical theories are proved not so much wrong, but flawed.