Ep. #213 – Answering 2 Big Objections to Pascal’s Wager
Summary
Is Pascal’s Wager still defensible today? Is it even possible to take Pascal’s wager if we don’t have willful control over what we believe? Supposing we can take the wager, ought we to do so? Is it rational to choose a belief for practical reasons and not merely evidential reasons? Dr. Liz Jackson joins us to discuss these topics.
Guest Bio
Dr. Liz Jackson is an assistant professor of philosophy at Ryerson University. Her research focuses on questions in epistemology and philosophy of religion. Her dissertation was on the relationship between belief and subjective probability (credence). Much of her research in epistemology revolves around the question “what should we believe?” In the philosophy of religion, her research focuses on the rationality of religious commitment, specifically, the relationship between faith and reason and Pascal’s wager. She completed her Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame in May 2019.
Resources
A Permissivist’s Defense of Pascal’s Wager (forthcoming)
Liz Jackson’s academia.edu page
Salvaging Pascal’s Wager (essay) by Liz Jackson and Andrew Rogers
Wagering Against Hiddenness (essay) by Liz Jackson
Taking Pascal’s Wager by Dr. Michael Rota
Answers to a Plethora of Common Objections to Pascal’s Wager by Amanda Askell (Thanks to a listener, Brian, for sending me this very useful resource)
Related Episodes
Ep. #20 – Retaking Pascal’s Wager with Dr. Rota
Ep. #91 – Salvaging Pascal’s Wager w/ Dr. Jackson
