Pascal's Wager

Abstract: Pascal's Wager is simply too good to be true-or better, too good to be sound. There must be something wrong with Pascal's argument that decision-theoretic reasoning shows that one must (resolve to) believe in God, if one is rational. No surprise, then, that critics of the argument are easily found, or that they have attacked it on many fronts. For Pascal has given them no dearth of targets. Virtually all of the Wager's critics have directed their campaigns against its premises. Other authors have rallied to its defense, buttressing those premises. I will argue that they are fighting a lost cause: developing arguments byJeffrey (1983) and Duff (1986), I will contend that the Wager is simply invalid. This motivates a search for reformulations of the original argument that are valid, while upholding its spirit. I will offer four such reformulations, each of which finesses the decision matrix of the Wager, and in particular its problematic invocation of "infinite utility." Yet these reformulations fall too, albeit for a different reason. This, in turn, might prompt advocates of the Wager to conduct another search for still further reformulations. However, I will argue that such a search is likely to be futile. When we examine what is at the root of the failure of the original Wager, and of the reformulations that I offer, we realize that their failures are symptomatic of a deep problem that any variant of the Wager must overcome. I will present a dilemma for all such variants, and conclude that their prospects for success are dim.

Abstract: Whether God exists is a metaphysical question. But there is also a neglected evaluative question about God’s existence: Should we want God to exist? Very many, including many atheists and agnostics, appear to think we should. Theists claim that if God didn’t exist things would be far worse, and many atheists agree; they regret God’s inexistence. Some remarks by Thomas Nagel suggest an opposing view: that we should want God not to exist. I call this view anti-theism. I explain how such view can be coherent, and why it might be correct. Anti-theism must be distinguished from the argument from evil or the denial of God’s goodness; it is a claim about the goodness of God’s existence. Anti-theists must claim that it’s a logical consequence of God’s existence that things are worse in certain respects. The problem is that God’s existence would also make things better in many ways. Given that God’s existence is likely to be impersonally better overall, anti-theists face a challenge similar to that facing nonconsequentialists. I explore two ways of meeting this challenge.

Abstract: Contents: Introduction: Thinking systematically about God from within the Christian tradition A masterpiece of theology The first thing to know: does God exist?, The heart of the matter: what God is (not) Divine names God's proper action A God of grace Epilogue: Aquinas' God and the language of participation Select bibliography Index.