Iterated Mixed Strategies and Pascal’s Wager

  • Emil BadiciEmail author


Mixed strategies have been used to show that Pascal’s Wager fails to offer sufficient pragmatic reasons for believing in God. Their proponents have argued that, in addition to outright belief in God, rational agents can follow alternatives strategies whose expected utility is infinite as well. One objection that has been raised against this way of blocking Pascal’s Wager is that applying a mixed strategy in Pascal’s case is tantamount to applying an iterated mixed strategy which, properly understood, collapses into the pure strategy of becoming a theist (Monton, Analysis 71:642–645, 2011). I argue that since the assumptions used to develop the iterated mixed strategies response are even more questionable than those the initial objection relies on, this type of response to the mixed strategy objection fails.


Pascal’s Wager Mixed strategies Game theory Theism 

Mathematics Subject Classification

Primary 62C05 Secondary 00A05 00A06 03B48 91A30 



Many thanks to the audience of the 2nd World Congress of Logic and Religion, Warsaw 2017, for useful comments.


  1. 1.
    Black, M.: Achilles and the tortoise. Analysis 11, 91–101 (1950)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duff, A.: Pascal’s Wager and infinite utilities. Analysis 46, 107–109 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Easwaran, K., Monton, B.: Mixed strategies, uncountable times, and Pascal’s Wager: a reply to Robertson. Analysis 72, 681–685 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hájek, A.: Waging war on Pascal’s Wager. Philos. Rev. 112, 27–56 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hájek, A.: Blaise and Bayes. In: Chandler, J., Harrison, V. (eds.) Probability in the Philosophy of Religion, pp. 167–86. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Monton, B.: Mixed strategies can’t avoid Pascal’s Wager. Analysis 71, 642–645 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robertson, S.: Some mixed strategies can evade Pascal’s Wager: a reply to Monton. Analysis 72, 295–298 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thomson, J.F.: Tasks and super-tasks. Analysis 15, 1–13 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of History, Political Science and PhilosophyTexas A&M University – KingsvilleKingsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations