Heffron's Wager

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2005-05-17 06:53pm

I found this at work. It's a response to Pascal's Wager. I don't remember it ever being posted before, so here it goes.
_________________________________

You may have heard of Pascal's Wager, which argues that the best bet is to believe in the god who can give you eternal life in heaven. Here's an argument for the opposite wager.

Suppose this life is all there is, that there is no god or eternal life. Since you have only this one life to live, the wisest course is to make the most of it. Pursue the enjoyment of a good life for yourself and contribute to the well-being of others, for that in turn enhances your own well being. If you're right, you'll not have wasted your precious time and resources on false hopes or expended your energy trying to please an imaginary deity.

If you're wrong, you'll still most likely have made the best bet. You will have lived a good life and avoided punishment in an afterlife for not believing. Why? Because the most credible and laudable, however improbable, theological conception of a god is of one that is gracious and loving. Such a god would surely approve of your decision to enjoy the good life and contribute to the happiness of others. Such a god would not withhold anything from you in this life or the hereafter, even if you couldn't believe. So forget about a god or eternal life. Just get on with what you know is good here and now. You have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

"Farewell Pascal: Heffron's Wager is a Better Bet! by Paul Heffron was published on page 12 of the Oct-Dec 1998 Secular Nation.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2005-05-17 07:15pm

Nice...I'll take that bet!

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-05-17 08:14pm

Heh, I came to that conclusion myself, and that was the reason I ditched religion some twelve years ago.

How long ago did this Heffron first place his bet?

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-05-17 09:40pm

It seems to suffer from the same type of flaws as Pascal's wager, which isn't surprising since its an inverse of the other.

Consider how Pascals wager assumes either there is either the Judeo Christian God and no god, a huge black/white fallacy. One of the ways to dismiss Pascal's Wager is to point out that given we have no way of knowing, I am as likely to piss off Zeus as Jehova or any multitude of Gods.

Heffron's wager seems to suffer from the same problem, only this time the choices are a god that is "that is gracious and loving" and no god. Again it seems to me that there is equal chance that God could be a big SOB (given lack of evidence to support either case).

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2005-05-18 01:29am

mr friendly guy wrote:It seems to suffer from the same type of flaws as Pascal's wager, which isn't surprising since its an inverse of the other.

Consider how Pascals wager assumes either there is either the Judeo Christian God and no god, a huge black/white fallacy. One of the ways to dismiss Pascal's Wager is to point out that given we have no way of knowing, I am as likely to piss off Zeus as Jehova or any multitude of Gods.

Heffron's wager seems to suffer from the same problem, only this time the choices are a god that is "that is gracious and loving" and no god. Again it seems to me that there is equal chance that God could be a big SOB (given lack of evidence to support either case).

Yeah, but if God is a big SOB, then I'm ethically compelled to spit in His, her, or its eye(s). So, in the added possibility, I should still take the wager, because I'd be dishonoring myself by kowtowing to a jackass Deity.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2005-05-18 01:35am

mr friendly guy wrote:It seems to suffer from the same type of flaws as Pascal's wager, which isn't surprising since its an inverse of the other.

It's meant for those who are immune to logic. It's a means of defeating the fundies at their own illogical game.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2005-05-18 02:01am

Molyneux wrote:
mr friendly guy wrote:It seems to suffer from the same type of flaws as Pascal's wager, which isn't surprising since its an inverse of the other.

Consider how Pascals wager assumes either there is either the Judeo Christian God and no god, a huge black/white fallacy. One of the ways to dismiss Pascal's Wager is to point out that given we have no way of knowing, I am as likely to piss off Zeus as Jehova or any multitude of Gods.

Heffron's wager seems to suffer from the same problem, only this time the choices are a god that is "that is gracious and loving" and no god. Again it seems to me that there is equal chance that God could be a big SOB (given lack of evidence to support either case).
Yeah, but if God is a big SOB, then I'm ethically compelled to spit in His, her, or its eye(s). So, in the added possibility, I should still take the wager, because I'd be dishonoring myself by kowtowing to a jackass Deity.

Exactly. I mean who'd want to spend eternity with a dickhead of a god?

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2005-05-18 09:19am

Wicked Pilot wrote:
mr friendly guy wrote:It seems to suffer from the same type of flaws as Pascal's wager, which isn't surprising since its an inverse of the other.
It's meant for those who are immune to logic. It's a means of defeating the fundies at their own illogical game.

Well, not quite: it shows that Pascal's Wager is invalid, even if you assume the nonexistance of other Gods. It is not meant to be valid by itself. What remains then is the question of which position is more probable: God or no God.

Anyway, it is possible to expand Pascal's Wager to include other faiths, and by that token attempt to show that atheism is the worst choice. Without ensuring parity between atheism and theism vis-a-vis Pascal's Wager type arguments, you would be forced not to choose atheism. Hence the advantage of Heffron's wager.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2005-05-18 12:54pm

mr friendly guy wrote:It seems to suffer from the same type of flaws as Pascal's wager, which isn't surprising since its an inverse of the other.

Consider how Pascals wager assumes either there is either the Judeo Christian God and no god, a huge black/white fallacy. One of the ways to dismiss Pascal's Wager is to point out that given we have no way of knowing, I am as likely to piss off Zeus as Jehova or any multitude of Gods.

They will say that there is still the possibility that the christian god exists. Even if this possiblity is very small. If you don´t believe in any god there is no possibilty that you´re right.

That´s not true of course, for there might as well be a god that only lets you into heaven if you don´t believe in any gods.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2005-05-18 01:05pm

Even if we assume a Christian God (for the sake of arguement) you still wouldn't win given that Jesus said that the only way to the father was through him (i.e. belief in him). In other words good deeds alone, with no belief in Christ = firey hell for you.

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2005-05-18 03:04pm

mr friendly guy wrote: Heffron's wager seems to suffer from the same problem, only this time the choices are a god that is "that is gracious and loving" and no god. Again it seems to me that there is equal chance that God could be a big SOB (given lack of evidence to support either case).

My take on this is that even if God is some SOB who chucks me into hell for disbelieving in him, there will be plenty of good people in hell, and conversely plenty of dickheads in heaven (eternity in the company Messrs. Fallwell and Robertson?).

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2005-05-18 07:23pm

Hell, I always figured eternity in heaven would be like unlimited sex, videogames, action, comedy and violence. And pizza. Only you don't get fat.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-05-18 10:13pm

wolveraptor wrote:Hell, I always figured eternity in heaven would be like unlimited sex, videogames, action, comedy and violence. And pizza. Only you don't get fat.

I always pictured it as a boring session listening to God wank about how great he is and with millions of drones next to you nodding their head in agreement.