In chapter 9, Paul Saka explores whether or not it is rational to cultivate religious belief by way of the Wager. He distinguishes between the standard “metaphysical wager” about our afterlife fate, and the “mundane wager” which instead argues for the value of religious belief in this life. In this regard, Saka’s paper may be seen as an inquiry into whether or not the overall decision matrix of the Wager should be one of weak/simple dominance (or even strict-dominance). More fully, Saka raises a series of questions about the merits of various models of rationality. He considers different norms for prudential evaluation, the context-dependence of the value of the mundane wager’s outcomes, and whether the benefits of religious belief are best modeled atomistically or in terms of collective well-being. Crucial to his argument are empirical studies suggesting that religious belief and practice are positively correlated with well-being at the individual level, but negatively correlated at the societal level. Saka argues that these empirical studies suggest different implications for the mundane wager, depending on whether one embraces an individualistic or co-operative concept of rationality.