Pascal's Wager Re-Visited

I was reading here about the interface between religion and politics. I thought this would be a good discussion, until I read this: Let me offer a humble and modest suggestion by posing a question for the secularist who has at least an equal share in the direction of public policy as does the theist: have you thought about the future? The secularist may dismiss the direction in which my inquiry is going, i.e., in an eschatological path. All I can do then is to propose that the secularist reflect on something that he or she may have never considered. And how might I do this? Let me offer the following illustration: I could say, “You may be right, Secularist, that it is all over when we die. But I ask you to consider the following: we both will die (however that happens), and this event is inevitable. You may look at me and say, ‘see I (the Secularist) was right. You have wasted a lifetime.’ But, my suggestion to you is this: But if I (the theist) am right, I will not have wasted a lifetime, but you will have wasted an eternity.” I wonder what the Secularist’s response will be to this exchange? If Araujo doesn't know the answer, he's not much of a theologian. This seemingly introspective analysis is known as Pascal's Wager, and is so close to the original that one may speculate that it was taken directly from it. We see here the result of only studying one version of history: Araujo knows of the Wager, but (ostensibly, at least) doesn't know the response. This occurs often in people who only expose themselves to one side of an issue. This is, again, why I tend to read both very liberal and very conservative accounts of the world. If one is to truly attempt to understand the world, one must do so from many perspectives. Do not fall into the same trap as Father Araujo. Read the Wager, as well as the response.