Re: Friendly Existential Wager

From: Mark Walker (
Date: Fri Jun 28 2002 - 14:39:08 MDT

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Rogers" <>
To: <>
> Of course, Pascal's Wager is a well-known (but modestly clever)
> fallacy. Your analogous construction doesn't appear to do much better,
> and for many of the same reasons.
I know that many understand Pascal's argument to be fallacious, I have never
heard of it referred to as a fallacy. (I've taught critical thinking at the
university level, part of which occasionally studies fallacies like 'ad
hominem' 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' etc.) My argument has a similar form
but it is hardly an exact parallel. For example, in Pascal's Wager I only
risk my soul, here everyone else is at risk. Another disanalogy is this: in
the case of God, the prevailing scientific opinion is that God does not
exist, in contrast, there is very little agreement among scientists about
how or when to implement Friendliness. Ironically, your post comes pretty
close to the fallacy of guilt by association.



Dr. Mark Walker
Research Associate (Philosophy), Trinity College, University of Toronto
Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Evolution and Technology,
Editor-in-Chief, Transhumanity, (
Home page:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:39 MDT