There’s probably no God…

_{William Dembski

January 8, 2009

Atheism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This just in from RichardDawkins.net:

Today, thanks to many Cif readers, the overall total raised for the Atheist Bus Campaign stands at a truly overwhelming £135,000, breaking our original target of £5,500 by over 2400%. Given this unexpected amount, I’m very excited to tell you that 800 buses – instead of the 30 we were initially aiming for – are now rolling out across the UK with the slogan, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”, in locations all over England, Scotland and Wales, including Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, York, Cardiff, Devon, Leeds, Bristol and Aberdeen.

There probably is no God

Three questions:

(1) What exactly is the probability that there is no God?

(2) In times past the state was concerned that people believe in God because they saw faith as curbing human wickedness (God holds us accountable for our actions and will see that in the end justice is served–so watch what you do). Wouldn’t it therefore be more honest for the atheists to put up the slogan: “There probably is no God. Now watch your back because no one else is.”

(3) Is it a coincidence that the world’s leading atheist is also a pathological Darwinist?

Comments

Seversky: I was not aware that anything I had written could be described as vitriolic. Please accept my apologies for not making my point clear. I was not referring to your vitriol, but that to which I have been subjected over the last several years on the Internet as a result of being an ID apologist and making my name public. I’ve been called every name in the book, the most common being IDiot. Click here for just one such example of the vitriol to which I've been subjected. I could give you hundreds of more examples.GilDodgen_{January 11, 2009
January
01
Jan
11
11
2009
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

GilDodgen wrote "My old world of atheistic nihilism did the exact opposite." To which TheYellowShark responded, "Sounds like you were doing it wrong." Uh, exactly how does one *do* atheistic nihilism correctly, then? The dictionary definition of "nihilism" is "an extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence"; "a doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated." TheYellowShark - Please explain to me how teaching your kids that they can do anything they want (since values are baseless) and they won't be judged for it (at least not at home) would contribute to a happy family life. Please explain to me how teaching anyone that nothing can truly be known would lead to advancement in any field of science. If nothing can be known, what's the point of performing experiements? Exploration? Writing peer-revewed papers? TheYellowShark also wrote: "Either this is sarcasm or you know absolutely nothing about the subject." Atheism is defined as "disbelief in or *denial of* the existence of god or gods." (emphasis mine). Richard Dawkins denies the existence of God. So does Sam Harris, Victor Stenger, Daniel Dennett, and probably a few others I missed.Barb_{January 11, 2009
January
01
Jan
11
11
2009
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 94
Absent any God or purpose, we are forced to confront Camut’s point: The fundamental philosophical question is whether or not to commit suicide. I think the worlds worst advice consists in the phrase, “get it while you can,” or “enjoy it while its here.” If you can’t keep it, it is totally worthless.
From the little I know of them, the French existentialists like Sartre and Camus were a depressing bunch. I think they missed the point, though. The fact that we only have a short time to enjoy the pleasant things that this world has to offer doesn't make them any the less pleasurable. If anything, it should prompt us to value them even more highly because our access to them is apparently so limited. Isn't it significant that so many people who survive a very close brush with death attest that they now relish every additional day of life that is allowed to them?Seversky_{January 11, 2009
January
01
Jan
11
11
2009
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

Gil Dodgen @ 98
Seversky et. al., I’ve lost interest in posting when I’m one of the few on this forum who uses his real name. Google Gil Dodgen or GilDodgen. I accept the vitriol but will not be an anonymous Internet coward. Give your real name or admit you’re a coward. Put up or shut up.
I was not aware that anything I had written could be described as vitriolic. It was not my intention and I would assume that the moderators would screen out anything that stepped over the mark. As for posting under an alias, that is a common practice on the Internet - I note that a number of regular contributors to Uncommon Descent do it. I would also argue that it serves a useful purpose in that the attention of other contributors is focussed on the content of the post rather than the author.Seversky_{January 11, 2009
January
01
Jan
11
11
2009
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

[tribune7] "And we can probably dig up some from Georges Lemaitre and Gregor Mendel who were sincere and serious Catholic priests" You can get loads of quotes from the biography of Sir William Rowan Hamilton (who was a scrupulously observant anglican.) The preface to Euler's arithmetic testifies that Euler considered atheists "among the most pernicious enemies of man." Probably tons of quotes in Tait & Balfour's "The Unseen Universe." Not to mention Sir Oliver Lodge's book contra Haeckel.Vladimir Krondan_{January 11, 2009
January
01
Jan
11
11
2009
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT}

Give your real name or admit you’re a coward. Put up or shut up.
I will give my real name when "Baylor Bear" gives his/hers.TheYellowShark_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

"Either this is sarcasm or you know absolutely nothing about the subject". Oh dear! Did I hurt your feelings? Mate I'll bow to your superior knowledge and intellect. Now does that make you happy? Btw at least I don't hide behind a false name or are you indeed a yellow shark?deric davidson_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Seversky et. al., I've lost interest in posting when I'm one of the few on this forum who uses his real name. Google Gil Dodgen or GilDodgen. I accept the vitriol but will not be an anonymous Internet coward. Give your real name or admit you're a coward. Put up or shut up.GilDodgen_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT}

To add to what nullasalus just wrote, how can you determine a design is bad or good anyway without some absolute and transcendent standard of bad or good. Seems that without this absolute moral standard, the best a person can say is "I don't like it." This is a far cry from an argument against design, much less a scientific argument. Furthermore, just because something breaks doesn't mean it wasn't designed ... take a fuse for example. Of course, this can lead to psychoanalyzing the designer (assuming a basic commonality among all intelligence) based on his designs, however this doesn't lead to any argument against design. Even with the psychoanalyzing, to accuse the designer of "bad" design, as I just mentioned above, one would need to appeal to an absolute standard from which to judge all designer's intentions -- assuming that we indeed do have evidence of the designer's intentions and full plan.CJYman_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT}

I'd disagree that the universe 'looks bad', and certainly that any supposed bad features makes it look undesigned. The very comprehensibility of the universe, the rationality seen in evolution (sans the Darwinian metaphysical baggage) and cosmology, etc, all point increasingly towards design and the primacy of mind. Though I would agree with StephenB to a point. Once someone has intellectually ruled out any consideration of God, most of the intellectual goals that have driven so many fall on the spot. What remains is absurdity, so long as you're consistent. And the ample evidence of inconsistency on that subject only demonstrates that Pascal's Wager is alive and well.nullasalus_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

Probably? PROBABLY?! I thought atheists were absolutely certain there is no God? They’re not hedging their bets are they? What a bunch of losers.
Either this is sarcasm or you know absolutely nothing about the subject. Besides, apparently the advertising board requested that they tone it down from the original statement, which was much stronger.TheYellowShark_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

-----Seversky: "In a sense, if there is no Creator and no purpose then it does not matter to us personally. What makes a difference to us during the brief span of our personal existence is all that counts. Nonetheless, there may be a truth beyond that: the nature of a universe whose truth does not depend on whether we find it acceptable but is just the way it is." Yes, that seems to be the substance of the debate. I have always believed that next to theism, existentialism is next in line as the most respectable intellectual position. Other coping strategies such as the positive thinking that closes its eyes, the gutsy stoicism that bears up under all, the reckless nihilism that obsesses over pleasure, the aggressive Darwinism that persecutes truth, or the trendy agnosticism that poses as open-mindedness—none of these approaches meet the intellectual challenge. If there is no God and no afterlife, there is no way to transform that gruesome fact into a rosy picture, and there is no way to make the best of an impossible situation. It is far better, in my judgment, to lay it on the line just as Sartre does. Acknowledge that the universe is absurd, and stop all this silly business about materialist “ethics” or arbitrary standards of goodness. If the universe is absurd, then despair really is the only reasonable response. Absent any God or purpose, we are forced to confront Camut’s point: The fundamental philosophical question is whether or not to commit suicide. I think the worlds worst advice consists in the phrase, “get it while you can,” or “enjoy it while its here.” If you can’t keep it, it is totally worthless. The good news is that the case for existentialism is not nearly as compelling as the case for God, which brings us to the real substance of the matter: If there is a world without end on the other side, then preparing for it takes logical precedence over enjoying this life, which most definitely will end.StephenB_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

Seversky:"The problem is the more we learn about the Universe the more it looks as if it was not created for our benefit. In fact, it looks like an incredibly dangerous place to be and we are lucky to have got as far as we have." Perhaps the reason the universe (creation) "looks" so bad is the entrance of sin, which Paul suggests when he writes that through sin, all of creation groans. Some of the things we see ... such as viruses, colliding galaxies, the appearance of bad design ... could be the manifestation of the degradation of creation since the entrance of sin. Yet as a former atheist who later rejected it because of the shortcomings of the evolution creation myth, it appears to me the universe, even in its perfect sense, must be upheld by God. This is clearly seen that in a perfect world, Adam and Eve had to eat special food to maintain their immortal nature. When they sinned, that food was no longer made available to them, and as a result, they started to die. (As a Bible-believing Christian, I certainly believe a 6-day creation event occurred ... but I also believe humans don't have souls. The idea of some bodiless spirit that lives on eternally after its body-host dies is as much a myth to me as it is to you. It is also a myth with no place in the Bible ... but that's another argument.) I agree that this particular viewpoint opens up some difficult ideas about the nature of God. I only say this to suggest that at least one creation myth (The Bible's) would have an answer to those who challenge the Intelligent Design movement based on the fact they would have done things differently as God. (Perhaps if Mormonism is true, they will get that chance!)faithandshadow_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

The problem is the more we learn about the Universe the more it looks as if it was not created for our benefit. The more we learn about the universe the more it seems it was fine-tuned for our existence.tribune7_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

Seversky:
The problem is the more we learn about the Universe the more it looks as if it was not created for our benefit. In fact, it looks like an incredibly dangerous place to be and we are lucky to have got as far as we have.
Lucky indeed! And lucky that life formed by itself when everything we know about math and chemistry and geology say its impossible (though many toil to fill the "gap" that keeps getting bigger). And lucky that we live on particularly beneficial world on a luckily compatible star in a fortunately quiet backwater of the galaxy. And lucky that the remarkably fortuitous arrangement of our neurons managed to produce a conscious state capable of realizing just how big a crap shoot it all is! That just about wraps it up for God; why if there was a God, nothing at all would appear to be lucky about our existence!SCheesman_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

Sal Gal @24
I believe that “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is indeed the Golden Rule. But it happens that Confucius said it first.
Hummm. According to tradition, Confucius was born in 551 BC. According to tradition, the Torah of Moses was given to Israel between 1400-1200 BC, which contains Leviticus 19:18. "And you shall love your neighbor as yourself." As a Torah-faithful Jew, Jesus in the first century reiterated this verse as one of the two greatest commandments. The other is from Deuteronomy 6:5: "Here O Israel, YHWH is our God, YHWH only." You believe in the actual historicity of Confucius? I believe in the actual historicity of Moses, and in both of the two greatest commandments. In any case, as others have said above, a universal awareness of what is good and bad human moral behavior does not in the slightest detract from any special revelation of God.benkeshet_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

GilDodgen @ 73
I will never go back.
StephenB @ 78
If our short stay here is all there is, then there is no such thing as goodness, only survival. If we don’t live forever, then all goodness is wasted, all hope is misguided, and every promise is a cruel joke.
Many people feel as you do and it is not hard for anyone with imagination to see why. If there is no God, if Nature is pitilessly indifferent to our existence, if we are just an accidental outcome of a purposeless Universe then we are faced with a stark, bleak, utterly hopeless and terrifying prospect. Agnostics and atheists who claim to be unmoved by contemplation of their own personal annihilation are just not doing it right. The problem is the more we learn about the Universe the more it looks as if it was not created for our benefit. In fact, it looks like an incredibly dangerous place to be and we are lucky to have got as far as we have. Given the above, it is completely understandable that people simply reject the possibility of a purposeless existence and turn to faiths that offer them warmth, comfort and the prospect of some sort of continued existence after physical death for themselves and their loved ones. Even if they are wrong, what does it matter if it makes life here more tolerable? In a sense, if there is no Creator and no purpose then it does not matter to us personally. What makes a difference to us during the brief span of our personal existence is all that counts. Nonetheless, there may be a truth beyond that: the nature of a universe whose truth does not depend on whether we find it acceptable but is just the way it is.Seversky_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

I wish someone would run a counter campaign made of of quotes of scientists who were contemporaneous with Darwin: "Do not let yourself be tainted with a barren skepticism." --Louis Pasteur "Happy is he who bears a god within." --Louis Pasteur "The greatest disorder of the mind is to let will direct it." --Louis Pasteur "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us." --Lord Kelvin (Here's one for Dembski "Mathematics is the only good metaphysics."--Lord Kelvin "The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism." -- Lord Kelvin "The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words." [Source] -- Lord Kelvin "Do not be afraid of being free thinkers. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion." -- Lord Kelvin And therefore, brethren, we ought to value the privilege of knowing God's truth far beyond anything we can have in this world. The more we see the perfection of God's law fulfilled in Christ, the more we ought to thank God for His unspeakable gift. -- Michael Faraday I have the capacity of being more wicked than any example that man could set me, and that if I escape, it is only by God's grace helping me to get rid of myself, partially in science, more completely in society, -- James Clerk Maxwell "Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever." --James Clerk Maxwell And since he's considered the father of science, albeit not contemporary with Darwn: For none deny, there is a God, but those, for whom it maketh that there were no God. It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip, than in the heart of man, than by this; that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted in it, within themselves, and would be glad to be strengthened, by the consent of others. Nay more, you shall have atheists strive to get disciples, as it fareth with other sects. --Francis Bacon And we can probably dig up some from Georges Lemaitre and Gregor Mendel who were sincere and serious Catholic prieststribune7_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

angryoldfatman @ 72
What is “best”? To suffer for others? Especially when so few will appreciate it? Of course not. If by “best” you mean pleasure, then why not spend your days in a chemically induced stupor, in hedonistic carnal activities, or both? Don’t these things feel good?
I take my cue on the question of personal freedom from J S Mill's On Liberty. I believe citizens should be free do do whatever they choose up to the point at which such action harms the person, property and rights of others. Deciding what constitutes 'harm' in this context is, of course, the difficult question. If this life is all there is then it is for each individual to decide what is best for them. If they want to smoke, drink, do drugs, drive fast cars, engage in extreme sports, write poetry, play videogames or watch soaps on TV then it is for them to decide provided that, by so doing, they are not infringing on the right of others to do the same.Seversky_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT}

"Probably" According to an article today in Canada's Globe & Mail by Elizabeth Renzetti, the "probably" was
required by the regulatory body that looks after Britain's bus advertising, which insisted the slogan needed to acknowledge "a grey area" with regard to the presence of the Almighty."
This has caused no little consternation among the athiest faithful, who rightly see it a waffling.SCheesman_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

(3) Is it a coincidence that the world’s leading atheist is also a pathological Darwinist? Of course not. See here: Inbred ScienceVladimir Krondan_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT}

Probably? PROBABLY?! I thought atheists were absolutely certain there is no God? They're not hedging their bets are they? What a bunch of losers.deric davidson_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT}

Interesting that the article reads "enjoy your life" but the sign on the bus reads "get on with your life". These carry quite different meanings.DaveScot_{January 10, 2009
January
01
Jan
10
10
2009
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT}

Sal Gal,
Dembski seems to think that only a consequentialist ethics is socially effective. If he pulls an old philosophy textbook off the shelf, he may confirm that virtue theory was dominant through medieval times. I would be very much interested in seeing his account of how people in Christian societies had to watch their backs until the Sixteenth Century or so, and how things got much better after that.
How very consequentialist of you! :-) The fact of the matter is that if you convince people that they'll burn in hell for eternity if they don't act right, they'll fall in line with whatever social order is required. Such a doctrine may be theoretically amiss, or its proselytization may be illicitly wrought. Nevertheless, it effects desired consequences. Now I'm not a consequentialist, but I can consider two consequences and determine that one would be more favorable than the other.crandaddy_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
11:39 PM
11
11
39
PM
PDT}

PPS: Oops, South African . . .kairosfocus_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

Stephen: Well said! And, it seems to me that since the issue of origins and of God are jointly at stake here, Job 38:1 - 7 has some very relevant things to say to us by way of a counsel of humility on the limits of our knowledge of the remote past:
1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: 2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? 3 Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. 4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? 6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone- 7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels [a] shouted for joy? [HT: Apollos]
In short, we would be wise to recognise that the remote past was not observed by human eyes, nor is it directly observable. So, our scientifically informed reconstructions of the past are provisional explanatory models, and are not to be confused with the reality of the past itself. (The parable of Plato's Cave [NB: link is to a v. well done NZ page] is relevantly parallel on how worldviews and communities can go utterly astray.) A comparison with Rom 1: esp. 18 - 22 & 28 - 32 is therefore sobering. GEM of TKI _________ PS: Re the Arab-Israeli side-track issue raised by MH, . . . I suggest, with all respect, that there is a whole other side to the story [e.g. the notorious "three no's" of Khartoum post June 1967 . . . ], and that the actual behaviour of Mexico raised above [which does have relevantly parallel historical claims] is an excellent contrast to the double war crime of deliberate rocketing of civilians and hiding behind other civilians used as human shields. (Pardon, Patrick, but I think the other side at least needs to be linked.)kairosfocus_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
10:42 PM
10
10
42
PM
PDT}

StephenB (78) "If we don’t live forever, then all goodness is wasted, all hope is misguided, and every promise is a cruel joke." I can see you have a great deal invested in your belief that you will "live forever." When you look back on the Decent of Man... where do you think the cut off for those who "live forever" would be drawn?Michael Haanel_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT}

----Sal Gal: "I simply hate the notion that ethical behavior comes from fear of God. The fear is entirely unnecessary, in my opinion, and I believe that Jesus meant to set us free of that. Much of his message was that our Father in Heaven loves us, and has forgiven us, and wants us to love another as He love us." Once again, there is something to what you say. The best kind of love is exactly as you describe it---spontaneous and free of fear. Sometimes, God (or a loving parent) can, indeed, inspire that kind of behavior by providing a loving example and supplying positive reinforcement. The problem is that it doesn’t always work. Some children, even those who have been loved from birth, will flirt with dangerous drugs and adopt self-destructive behavior patters. The loving parent, having failed with other options, will warn the child about what lies ahead unless changes are made. Refusing to issue that warning is the same as refusing to love. Thus, the parent (and God) uses fear in its proper setting. [“If you don’t stop living that way, you will destroy yourself” [in this life and the next]. Further, it is easy to delude one’s self about the extent to which he actually practices love. Men can fool themselves into thinking that they love their women even as they send them off to get an abortion. Donors may think their tax-sheltered contributions to charitable organizations compensate for their vicious habit of slander and calumny. Politicians often believe that they are serving the public even though they are simply pampering their own egos. Television preachers can think they are spreading the Gospel when they are simply using their public speaking talents to further their career. Further still, this world does not usually reward “agape” type love. Oh yes, it rewards the soft, feel-good sentiment that causes the women in Oprah Winfrey’s audience to cry crocodile tears. Real love, however, is inseparable from sacrifice and is often persecuted—like the non-violent pro-lifers who get arrested for protesting the killing of unborn children-- like qualified, yet unelectable statesmen who must stand aside and watch double-talking empty suits run the government—like the Old and New Testament prophets who practiced heroic virtue and experienced a martyrs death. Real goodness is inseparable from the kind of courage, humility, and wisdom that thinks beyond this life. If our short stay here is all there is, then there is no such thing as goodness, only survival. If we don’t live forever, then all goodness is wasted, all hope is misguided, and every promise is a cruel joke.StephenB_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

Christianity is supposed to teach the love of one’s enemy. OK Mohammed, why don't you try to show a little Christianity yourself and see the point of Israel? If Mexico were allowing rockets to be fired from its territory to kill U.S. kids, I'd support an invasion wouldn't you?tribune7_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT}

Including those who are agnostic?
I already submitted a comment that addressed this point (with regards to Berlinski in particular) but it looks like it didn't get through the filter.TheYellowShark_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply