Thus, she concludes that the move from precise to imprecise credences makes no difference to the success of Pascal’s Wager for any rational agent. However, Rinard provides three distinct arguments that for any contingent proposition P, including the proposition that God exists, no rational agent has a credence interval for P that includes 0. For an agnostic whose credence interval includes 0, Pascal’s Wager fails. Rinard shows that decision theory can accommodate imprecise credences, and that Pascal’s Wager still succeeds for an agent whose credence that God exists is vague over a range that does not include 0. The fascination, for some, derives from the. But it is something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the tide of atheism. Pascals Wager is unique among theological arguments for the degree to which it evokes both fascination and disgust. If you believe in God only as a bet, that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. Pascal well knew that it was a low ladder. For instance, your credence might be vague over the interval (0, 1/100) if you think that the probability that God exists is greater than 0 but less than 1/100. Pascal's Wager claims to be that third ladder. Rigorous but readable, this unusual book. These in turn inspired the 2020 launches of both BAFTA-winning director Peter Armstrong's feature film about Fleming's perspective and legacy - 'The Sequel: What Will Follow Our Troubled Civilisation?' - and Sterling College's unique 'Surviving the Future: Conversations for Our Time' online courses.In chapter 14, Susanna Rinard asks what happens to Pascal’s Wager if we drop the usual assumption that a rational agent must have a sharp, real-valued credence p > 0 that God exists and suppose instead that it is reasonable to have an imprecise credence. Taking Pascals Wager is a novel combination of Pascalian wagering with natural theology and Christian evidences. His wide-ranging independent analysis culminated in two critically acclaimed books, 'Lean Logic' and 'Surviving the Future', published posthumously in 2016. Pascals Wager is an argument that, insofar as human beings bet on Gods existence with the fates of their eternities, the rational person ought to believe. He was also a pioneer of post-growth economics, and a significant figure in the development of the UK Green Party, the Transition Towns movement and the New Economics Foundation, as well as a Chairman of the Soil Association. He was among the first to reveal the possibility of peak oil's approach and invented the influential TEQs scheme, designed to address this and climate change. You do not at all have to be certain that climate change is real to justify doing something about it.ĭr David Fleming (2 January 1940 – 29 November 2010) was a cultural historian and economist, based in London, England. If a breakdown of the present climate equilibrium-an event of infinitely high cost-were no more than a minor possibility, it would still be rational to take action, even expensive action, to try to prevent it. Rinard shows that decision theory can accommodate imprecise credences, and that Pascals Wager still succeeds for an agent whose credence that God exists is. Its as if theres only one dog that will get you. The way you usually hear it, either God exists or he doesnt. The Wager is a version of the Precautionary Principle, but it is less vague, and it is a reasonable approach to risk in a constructive argument with (say) sceptics on climate change. Pascals Wager is a sort of dislexic dog race. It would only be a bad bet if we knew for certain that God does not exist, which we don’t.

Therefore, assuming that he does exist and committing oneself to a life of faith is a good bet.

If God exists, and one commits oneself to a life of faith, the rewards in Heaven will be infinitely greater than any benefit one would get in life by not committing oneself to a life of faith (perhaps a bit of extra time for gardening on a Sunday morning?). If God existed, and the person believed in God, he would be rewarded (with happiness forever) if the person did not believe, he would be. Therefore, it is better to bet that God exists. He said that it is not possible to prove or disprove that God exists.

An argument set out by Blaise Pascal in his Pensées (1670). Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is the name for an idea that Blaise Pascal had.

Pascal wager