Pascal's wager: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Restored revision 1191652287 by NinjaRobotPirate (talk): Rv unreferenced changes
m reinstate previous edit
Line 224:
* The [[Atheist's Wager]], popularised by the philosopher [[Michael Martin (philosopher)|Michael Martin]] and published in his 1990 book ''Atheism: A Philosophical Justification'', is an atheistic wager argument in response to Pascal's wager.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Martin |first1=Michael |title=Atheism: A Philosophical Justification |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/atheismphilosoph00mart_0/page/228/mode/2up |date=1990 |publisher=Temple University Press |location=Philadelphia |isbn=9780877226420 |chapter=9}}</ref>
* A 2008 philosophy book, ''[[How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time]]'', presents a secular revision of Pascal's wager: "What does it hurt to pursue value and virtue? If there is value, then we have everything to gain, but if there is none, then we haven’t lost anything.... Thus, we should seek value."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://andphilosophy.com/2014/07/16/24-and-philosophy/|title=24 and Philosophy|date=July 16, 2014}}</ref>
* [[Pascal's Mugging]], a dialogue written by philosopher [[Nick Bostrom]], shows that a rational victim can be made to give up his wallet in exchange for a weakly credible promise of astronomical repayment.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bostrom |first=Nick |date=July 2009 |title=Pascal's mugging |url=http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/pascals-mugging.pdf |access-date=25 May 2022 |website=Future of Humanity Institute}}</ref> As in Pascal's Wager, a small but certain downside is outweighed by a large but unlikely upside.
* [[Roko's basilisk]] is a hypothetical future [[superintelligence]] that punishes everyone who failed to help bring it into existence.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Paul-Choudhury |first1=Sumit |title=Tomorrow's Gods: What is the future of religion? |url=https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190801-tomorrows-gods-what-is-the-future-of-religion |access-date=28 August 2020 |work=BBC |language=en}}</ref>
* In a 2014 article, philosopher Justin McBrayer argued we ought to remain agnostic about the existence of God but nonetheless believe because of the good that comes in the present life from believing in God. "The gist of the renewed wager is that theists do better than non-theists regardless of whether or not God exists."<ref>{{cite journal |last=McBrayer |first=Justin P. |date=23 September 2014 |title=The Wager Renewed: Believing in God is Good for You |url=https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/08c259_ddaba160e3bd4bfcb8ae1cc82afeab5f.pdf |journal=Science, Religion and Culture |volume=1 |issue=3 |pages=130–140 |access-date=29 September 2019}}</ref>