Which story is that? I'm betting on "Gulf".

It seems to me like this depends a lot on what sort of knotty theological questions.

Suppose there is a dispute among Christians about whether doing some particular thing is necessary for salvation. Then the question can't be safely shelved until "the hereafter" because if one side is right then the other is in grave danger.

Or suppose there is a dispute about whether doing some particular thing is morally wrong (and therefore / because it is) hateful to the gods. Then even if for whatever reason you are confident of not being punished for doing it, if you care about doing the right thing or about pleasing the gods then you will want to resolve that dispute.

The context in this instance -- thanks, Google Books! -- appears to be a question about transubstantiation, arising in 12th-century England. I think a Christian believer might reasonably be concerned that disbelieving in transubstantiation if it's right might be dangerous, and that the reverse might be idolatrous -- which they'd presumably want to avoid even if they weren't worried they'd be damned for it.

Reason is poor propaganda when opposed by the yammering, unceasing lies of shrewd and evil and self-serving men. The little man has no way to judge and the shoddy lies are packaged more attractively. There is no way to offer color to a colorblind man, nor is there any way for us to give the man of imperfect brain the canny skill to distinguish a lie from a truth.

-- Robert A Heinlein. Assignment in Eternity, Loc 939 (Kindle edition)

"Knotty theological questions are the least worrying of problems to me."

"Why?"

"Because they will be resolved in the hereafter, and meanwhile they can be safely shelved."

-- Ken Follet. Pillars of the Earth, pg 696 (Kindle edition)

You can put up a bond instead: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18

Two things come to mind.

1. Programming a "friendly" AI may be impossible but it is to soon to tell.

2. A recursively self-modifying system lacking any guiding principles is not a good place to start.

That might depend the the kind of insurance. For example, here in California, I am required by law to have personal liability and property damage coverage on my cars. If I take out a loan for a car, the lender will require I have collision and theft as well. So, if I decide I want to drive on public streets, buying insurance -- rational or not -- becomes a part of the cost of owning and operating a vehicle.

See also: "The Perfect/Great is the enemy of the Good"

Don't hate the playa, hate the game

-- Ice-T

Or, as the Urban Dictionary puts it:

Do not fault the successful participant in a flawed system; try instead to discern and rebuke that aspect of its organization which allows or encourages the behavior that has provoked your displeasure.

A meta-comment: It's always good to have an arsenal of mainstream-accessible quotes to use for those times when explaining game theory is just loo much of an inferential leap. I'd like to find more of these.