Pascal's Wager is a possible bet (but not a very good one): Reply to Harmon Holcomb III


Authors
Graham Oppy
Monash University
Abstract
In "To Bet The Impossible Bet", Harmon Holcomb III argues: (i) that Pascal's wager is structurally incoherent; (ii) that if it were not thus incoherent, then it would be successful; and (iii) that my earlier critique of Pascal's wager in "On Rescher On Pascal's Wager" is vitiated by its reliance on "logicist" presuppositions. I deny all three claims. If Pascal's wager is "incoherent", this is only because of its invocation of infinite utilities. However, even if infinite utilities are admissible, the wager is defeated by the "many gods" and "many wagers" objections. Moreover, these objections do not rely on mistaken "logicist" presuppositions: atheists and agnostics traditionally and typically hold that they have no more--or at any rate, hardly any more--reason to believe in the traditional Christian God than they have to believe in countless alternative deities
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF00140081
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 48,824
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Pascal's Wager.Alan Hájek - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
On Rescher on Pascal's Wager.Graham Oppy - 1991 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 30 (3):159 - 168.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
78 ( #115,677 of 2,309,335 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
13 ( #54,817 of 2,309,335 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature