Graduate studies at Western
Noûs 28 (3):382-395 (1994)
|Abstract||Only one traditional objection to Pascal's wager is telling: Pascal assumes a particular theology, but without justification. We produce two new objections that go deeper. We show that even if Pascal's theology is assumed to be probable, Pascal's argument does not go through. In addition, we describe a wager that Pascal never considered, which leads away from Pascal's conclusion. We then consider the impact of these considerations on other prudential arguments concerning what one should believe, and on the more general question of when and why belief formation ought to be based solely on the evidence.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Volker Dieringer (2009). Is a Jamesian Wager the Only Safe Bet? On Jeff Jordan's New Book on Pascal's Wager. Archiv für Geschichte Der Philosophie 91 (2):237-247.
Alan Hájek, Pascal's Wager. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Graham Oppy (1991). On Rescher on Pascal's Wager. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 30 (3):159 - 168.
Bradley Monton (2011). Mixed Strategies Can't Evade Pascal's Wager. Analysis 71 (4):642-645.
Christopher Toner (2006). Pascal's First Wager Reconsidered. International Philosophical Quarterly 46 (1):75-90.
Graham Oppy (1996). Pascal's Wager is a Possible Bet (but Not a Very Good One): Reply to Harmon Holcomb III. [REVIEW] International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 40 (2):101 - 116.
Virgil Martin Nemoianu (2010). The Insufficiency of the Many Gods Objection to Pascal's Wager. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 84 (3):513-530.
Greg Janzen (2011). Pascal's Wager and the Nature of God. Sophia 50 (3):331-344.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads84 ( #11,029 of 739,398 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,398 )
How can I increase my downloads?