- Weak Agnosticism: not knowing whether God exists or not, but remaining open to deciding later (presumably after thinking more on the subject or gaining more facts).
- Strong Agnosticism: not knowing whether God exists or not, and deeming it impossible to ever know. No amount of future knowledge or evidence will change a strong agnostic's mind on this.
- Pascal's wager: A non believer stands to lose more if God exists than a believer stands to lose if God doesn't exist. A rational person should behave as if God exists whether he has proof of it or not.
Now my reasoning is the following: A weak agnostic can assign likely hood to each outcome (theism vs atheism), since her position regarding the question can change over time. It is conceivable that at some point Pascal's criteria doesn't hold, since although she still thinks it is possible that God exists, the likely hood is so small that that she stands to loose more by believing than by not believing.
Implicit in the strong agnostic's point of view is that both outcomes are equally likely, since no information gain or loss on the question is ever possible. If both outcomes are equally likely, then Pascal's argument of loss vs gain stands, and a strong agnostic should live as if she believed in God.
Does this reasoning make sense? Should a strong agnostic follow Pascal's advice?