Blaise Pascal was a French polymath: philosopher, mathematician, theologian, scientist, inventor of the barometer .... he dabbled into a number of projects, including developing an earlier calculator. (The old computer language Pascal was named after him.)
He was also a religious philosopher, having gotten involved with the Port Royal Jansenist sect that advocated a too, too strict brand of Catholicism.
Later in his life, he wrote Pensées, thoughts about religion and other subjects.
In this book he gave a very interesting interpretation of why one should be a Christian: being one is a safe bet. Consider these possibilities of choice, and possible outcomes that might emerge. Its important to remember that the empirical probability of God existing is unknown.
If we approach it in terms of decision-making theory, given that we cannot assert the likelihood that God exists, it makes good sense to focus on the possible payoffs by choosing the one with the higher possible outcome. This line of reasoning can be applied in other situations, as Bill Watterson's Calvin and Hobbes illustrated:
There's a lot of debate, pro and con, regarding the faking of orgasms. Does the faking of actual religiousness or belief come into this same degree of debate? As the picture above indicates, it might be futile to try to fake an omniscent being out by pretending to believe in Him.
Pascal may have an out, though. He suggested in the Pensées that, if you're not spiritual or religious, but wish to be, then perform religious behavior. Doing the actions may often lead to the inner feeling or emotion or belief. In other words, faking it may lead to the action that is desired.
Can we extend this principle a step further? Could routinely faking orgasms lead to an increased likelihood of experiencing the Big O now and then? If that's the case, then maybe we can apply Pascal's thinking to justify faking orgasms!!!
Thank Blaise if that works.