Is Rejecting the Metaphysical Truly Rational? A Deeper Look at Logic, Luck and Pascal’s Wager

People who consider themselves rationalists, and those who pride themselves on being logical and scientific— often reject anything that seems beyond the purview of scientific analysis. This includes astrology, God, religion, tarot readings and other so-called pseudosciences that don’t easily fit within the scientific method.

They see this rejection as the rational thing to do.

But let’s consider Pascal’s Wager:

So, from a purely rational standpoint, the logical thing to do would be to believe since the potential upside is infinite while the downside is negligible.

Now, let’s extend this idea beyond religion to something that cannot be explained through any rational phenomenon— luck.

The universe operates in a state of entropy.

So many things in life— success, failure, opportunities— depend on being in the right place, at the right time, with the right people. No matter how much information you have, you can’t control or predict everything like a laboratory experiment.

To think you’re so rational that you can logically deduce every possible outcome is ironically, an irrational belief.

True rationality acknowledges that some things are inherently unpredictable. No matter how much data you have, there will always be hundreds of unmeasurable variables affecting outcomes in ways you can’t anticipate.

So where am I going with all of this?

Luck is a major determinant of success.

But when things go our way, we don’t think about it. We take it for granted. Just like we take sight, mobility or health for granted until we lose them.

Personally, I lost an eye when I was 1.5 years old. So I’ve lived most of my life as a monocular person.

Most people never think about stereoscopic vision or depth perception until they lose it. But when you’re forced to compensate for something, you become acutely aware of its importance.

You learn to optimise for your disadvantage— whether by adjusting how you drive, avoiding activities that require fast depth perception, or taking extra precautions in situations that could be risky.

Luck works the same way.

When you’re in a streak of good luck, you don’t think about how much it’s helping you. But when you’re going through a streak of bad luck, you realise how crucial it is.

And if luck is such a major factor in life, wouldn’t it make sense to develop strategies to optimise it?

The problem is, luck isn’t something that can be measured or controlled through the scientific method. If it were, we’d have a formula for success, and randomness wouldn’t exist. But because it’s unpredictable, it’s worth exploring alternative frameworks that claim to optimise it— whether through astrology, Vedic sciences or other predictive models.

Dismissing these outright just because they don’t fit into a rigid scientific worldview isn’t necessarily rational. It’s just intellectual arrogance.

I think of it like coding.

If you encounter a bug in your system, you don’t insist on debugging it only with the frameworks you’re familiar with. Some problems require different tools, different methodologies, or even consulting someone who specialises in that framework.

Similarly, life has different ‘modules’.

Some of them might be better understood through alternative perspectives, whether or not they align with conventional science.

So if you find something that actually benefits you, why would you reject it just to protect your fragile ego? An ego that insists: “I’m rational. I’m logical. I don’t believe in these things”.

Is that really rational?

Because if you go back to Pascal’s Wager, rejecting something that could benefit you with no real downside isn’t logical. It’s just limiting yourself.

Likewise, rejecting religion entirely means you’re giving up the benefits of community, shared consciousness and structured meaning.

Does that really make you more rational? Or are you just self-sabotaging in the name of intellectual purity?

Something to ponder.

I’ll leave you with this thought.