Final answer:
Fallibilism indeed complicates Pascal's wager by introducing the concept of uncertainty in human knowledge and the many god's problems, which decides to believe in a specific deity less straightforwardly.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question posed by the student addresses the interaction between fallibilism and Pascal's wager, particularly regarding the addition of complexity to the wager's reasoning process. Fallibilism, a philosophical doctrine that considers all human knowledge as potentially fallible and open to revision, indeed complicates Pascal's wager, which is a non-epistemic, pragmatic argument for believing in God.
Pascal's wager suggests that it's a safer bet to believe in God, as the potential rewards outweigh the risks if God does indeed exist. Fallibilism, on the other hand, pushes us to acknowledge the uncertainty inherent in our beliefs and decisions. By adding the fallibilistic lens, we recognize that there is no way to be certain about which religion's God, if any, is the true God to believe in, and thus, this complicates the supposedly simple bet on God's existence proposed by Pascal.
Fallibilism prompts us to consider the many god's problems, raising the issue that if multiple deities from various religions could be the true God, then Pascal's wager becomes far less straightforward. The wager then not only has to account for whether a god exists or not but also which of the many potential gods to believe in, further complicating the decision matrix that Pascal laid out.
Ultimately, fallibilism challenges us to continuously scrutinize and re-evaluate our beliefs rather than accepting them at face value, thus adding layers of complexity to any non-epistemic proof, including Pascal's wager, which purports to guide our beliefs and actions based on a pragmatic rather than rational or evidence-based approach.