Pascal's wager is mainly faulty because it relies on a complete lack of information, unlike climate change where we have some information. If we had any clues a

Pascal's wager is mainly faulty because it relies on a complete lack of information, unlike climate change where we have some information. If we had any clues at all that any existing gods are benevolent, it would most definitely be the right choice from a pragmatic perspective. If we circle back to climate change as an example, it's hard to be certain but that's still a lot of clues telling us we should do something. I assume you're not headed into religious debate territory but I don't imagine pragmatists focus much on metaphysical matters (I know I don't).