On Rescher on Pascal's Wager

Abstract

In Pascal's Wager: A Study Of Practical Reasoning In Philosophical Theology} Nicholas Rescher aims to show that, contrary to received philosophical opinion, Pascal's Wager argument is "the vehicle of a fruitful and valuable insight one which not only represents a milestone in the development of an historically important tradition of thought but can still be seen as making an instructive contribution to philosophical theology."2 In particular, Rescher argues that one only needs to adopt a correct perspective in order to see that Pascal's Wager argument is a good argument. Moreover, there seems to be a certain amount of contemporary support for Rescher' s claim that Pascal's Wager argument can be seen to be a good argument when properly construed? However, despite this recent trend to adopt a more sympathetic stance towards Pascal's Wager argument, I propose to defend the traditional view that Pascal's Wager argument is almost entirely worthless at least from the theological standpoint. (No doubt, it has historical significance from the standpoint of decision theory; but that's a separate matter.) This paper is divided into two sections. I begin, in section 1, by outlining the defence of Pascal's Wager argument which is given by Rescher in Pascal's Wager. Then, in section 2, 1 explain why this defence fails.