Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 91 (2):237-247 (2009)
In his new book on Pascal's Wager, Jeff Jordan argues that only the ‘Jamesian’ version of the wager argument, as he sees it presented in William James' essay The Will to Believe , constitutes a sound pragmatic argument in favour of theism, whereas Pascal's original wager argument is doomed to fail on various grounds. This article argues that Jordan's theory is untenable. The many-gods objection is used as an example: it is demonstrated that the Jamesian Wager argument too is powerless to rebut this objection.
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
The Insufficiency of the Many Gods Objection to Pascal's Wager.Virgil Martin Nemoianu - 2010 - American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 84 (3):513-530.
On Rescher on Pascal's Wager.Graham Oppy - 1991 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 30 (3):159 - 168.
Pascal's Wager is a Possible Bet (but Not a Very Good One): Reply to Harmon Holcomb III.Graham Oppy - 1996 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 40 (2):101 - 116.
Pascal's Wager: Pragmatic Arguments and Belief in God.Jeff Jordan - 2006 - Oxford University Press.
Added to index2009-08-16
Total downloads99 ( #52,060 of 2,178,189 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #316,497 of 2,178,189 )
How can I increase my downloads?