Check out this new paper by Saul Smilansky, who turns the tables on Pascal’s Wager (see also here and image below). In brief, Professor Smilansky’s argument is that God will be more upset at people who accept the wager (i.e. belief in God) but still commit moral transgressions than at atheists who reject the wager but live good moral lives. Although I am not buying Smilansky’s argument (since we are all sinners), it is worth reading and thinking about. Hat tip: Brian Leiter.
- 444,798 hits
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
Blogs I Follow
Question and this only loosely related to the topic above; is it possible to have intra-personal Prisoner’s Dilemma over the God question?
that is a fascinating possibility, since can’t “know” whether God is one of the players!
That really would be an interesting question to further explore.
Thomas Schelling once wrote about our “multiple selves” so this approach is feasible
I guess I owe a great debt to the work of Thomas Schelling.
P.S.: Here is a lecture Schelling delivered on the problem of multiple selves: https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_resources/documents/a-to-z/s/schelling83.pdf
I love his theory of egonomics. I can’t thank you enough for introducing me to Schelling.
I actually applied his conception to the scaling of the collective action problem last year.
I certainly believe the same can be done for PD dynamics.
I will absolutely check this lecture out some point before next Monday. Time is working against me … busy week… Quarter end at work and I am trying finish an essay before the week of the US elections.