In philosophy that's called Pascal's Wager. It's an interesting argument, but there are problems with it IMO.
The gamble Pascal speaks about makes sense to me. - 'there's more to be gained from wagering on the existence of God than from atheism, and that a rational person should live as though God exists, even though the truth of the matter cannot actually be known.'
I've been arguing probability for over 10 years... and it makes sense that a physics and mathematician would have similar views.
The 'problems' are minimized when you actually study religion. First, off God isn't punishing those who simply deny out of ignorance or not ever hearing about a higher power... There are those who know, who then turn their back, they more than likely will be denied these rewards ; if rewards exist. Nevertheless the rewards shouldn't be the sole motivation regardless.
Also, Sure he is speaking about a Christian God, so he is ignoring possibilities, but his concept isn't flawed in a true sense. God is God no matter what avenue to approach it with. The multiple faith argument against his reasoning is wrong.
If I wanted to argue against him, I would use doxastic voluntarism - belief is an involuntary action. Statistics aren't enough to convert people into believers. You can't force a belief and You can't fake worship, just to be on the safe side.
