What should replace Pascal's wager in my opinion.

[Angrboda]

"Then, there are some people, they're not stupid, they're full of shit."
George Carlin

This whole notion seems like little more than an attempt to justify reversing the burden of proof for religion. Oh, but only if not believing matters. No. Simply, no. It is never the duty of the reasonable man to demonstrate that religious claims are unreasonable, it is always the duty of the religious to prove the reasonableness of their claims. Seriousness of consequence, as a pretext, is just special pleading that religion should get a pass where other claims do not. And let's be realistic, if there were one religion which could persuade a reasonable man, any reasonable man, to believe, the whole question would be moot; there would be only one religion. The problem is that religion, without prior bias, is not persuasive.