A practical response to global warming

Paul Helm  |  Features
Date posted:  1 Nov 2008
Share Add       

It has been suggested that, in a situation of great uncertainty over a vital issue, we should adopt Blaise Pascal’s strategy. Pascal famously argued that, in a situation in which it could not be proved either that God exists or that he does not exist, with the evidence for and against the question broadly speaking balanced, the rational thing to do is to gamble on his existence. If we win we shall escape judgment, and if we lose there won’t be a judgment to escape. Whereas if we gamble on his non-existence, we shall suffer punishment if we are wrong and be obliterated if we are correct, and we have a 50-50 chance of being wrong.

So, perhaps, in Pascalian fashion, in a situation of radical uncertainty, coupled with the possibly dangerous consequences of inaction, we should gamble on the global warming ‘scientific consensus’ being correct.

The trouble with Pascal’s wager is that there is not just one alternative, atheism or theism. So it’s not a case of a straight wager for or against ‘God’, for this raises the question ‘Which god ought I to wager on?’

Share
< Previous article| Features| Next article >
Read more articles by Paul Helm >>

Humourless humanism

Dr. Grayling is Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London. According to the blurb on the book, he …

Sanity for the suffering

Why does someone else always have the good ideas? Nancy Guthrie, who has herself experienced severe loss, has here brought …

Looking for a job?

Browse all our current job adverts

Search

Give a subscription

🎁 Get 20% off a subscription for a friend this Christmas!

Tell me more