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 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Pascal's Wagers.Jeff Jordan - 2002 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 26 (1):213–223.
Pascal's wager: pragmatic arguments and belief in God.Jeff Jordan - 2006 - New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
On Rescher on Pascal's Wager.Graham Oppy - 1991 - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 30 (3):159 - 168.
Pascal's Wager.Alan Hájek - 2008 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-08-16

Downloads
134 (#127,211)

6 months
1 (#1,040,386)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references