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

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
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
PhilPapers/Archive ID
OPPPWI
Upload history
Archival date: 2021-01-12
View other versions
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
87 ( #40,246 of 55,841 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #49,118 of 55,841 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.