There’s probably no God…

_{William Dembski
January 8, 2009

Atheism

2}_{Categories
Atheism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

...despite the evidence of modern molecular biology, information theory, and simple probabilistic mathematical analysis that I learned in seventh grade.
Now this I'm anxious to hear about.
...My old world of atheistic nihilism produced the exact opposite...
Sounds like you were doing it wrong.TheYellowShark_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

Interesting that some of my posts have been deleted. Yeah, it's almost like something out of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or something. Whoa. Spooky. Next thing you know you'll be getting charged interest on a car loan. And what's with bringing up Jimmy Carter? You waxing nostalgic about taking over an embassy?tribune7_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
05:57 PM
5
05
57
PM
PDT}

Patrick: What about religious people who were Darwinists first and ID proponents later based upon the evidence? I gave myself as one such example. I was not only a Darwinist but the atheistic equivalent of Saul of Tarsus, a militant atheist who delighted in attempting to destroy the faith of Christians -- a Richard Dawkins clone. It all came crashing down during a period of time in 1994 at age 43, and I would have to write a book about it. One factor in the crash was discovering that Darwinian theory -- the creation story of my former religion of atheism -- in its grand claims about explaining all of life, was a Himalayan pile of nonsense that had clearly been perpetuated and sold to me despite the evidence of modern molecular biology, information theory, and simple probabilistic mathematical analysis that I learned in seventh grade. Since my Damascus Road experience I have discovered an entirely new world, especially through my involvement in Calvary Chapel ministries. It is a world in which lives, families, marriages, children, and communities are healed and restored. My old world of atheistic nihilism produced the exact opposite. I will never go back.GilDodgen_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

Seversky wrote:
Whatever, if anything, may lie after death, we are fragile and ephemeral beings and we owe it to ourselves to make the best of what fleeting time we are allowed in this form.
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? Oh I know, such a person would be a burden on others. Well, so what. You can't feel the feelings of those other people anyway. If they don't want to feel good and want to suffer on your account, why should that impede you? Besides, their desire to suffer is indicative of a sickness, isn't it? Who would inflict pain and suffering on themselves unless they were sick? Particularly if the suffering involves trying to stop someone else from feeling good? But what if the guy/girl having fun is shortening his/her life by engaging in the pleasurable activity? Well, so what. They're going to die anyway. They are fragile and ephemeral beings and they owe it to themselves to make the best of what fleeting time they are allowed in this form. There's probably no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life.angryoldfatman_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

For more on the Aussie atheist bus campaign see http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/atheist-message-misses-local-bus/2009/01/08/1231004199169.htmlidnet.com.au_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

The Yellow Shark: "The same cannot be said of ID proponents. ID proponents generally argue for ID from pre-existing religious beliefs." Including those who are agnostic?Barb_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

I would suggest that there are two points we should bear in mind when discussing morality or ethics in the context of the debate over ID and evolution. The first should be uncontroversial in that a scientific theory is intended to be descriptive not prescriptive. It attempts to explain the way the Universe - or, at least, some aspect of it - is rather than how we think it should be. If it is true, it remains true regardless of its implications and that holds for ID as much as for evolution. Even if that theory had been co-opted to provide support for a movement like eugenics - which most here, including myself, find abhorrent - it would make no difference to how true it is. The second point is that we should address the problem of the Euthyphro Dilemma. Is something 'good' only because God says it is or can something be intrinsically 'good' regardless of what God or anyone else says? If something is only 'good' because God says it is then what guarantee do we have that His moral injunctions are not just the whims of a capricious being, given that we have examples from the Old Testament of His ordering or, at least, endorsing acts that today we would consider atrocities? If, on the other hand, things can be 'good' in and of themselves then what is to prevent us discovering them for ourselves? In addition, if we assume, as I believe most Christians do, that God is a rational being and that his moral prescriptions are the outcome of a process of reasoning then, again, what is to prevent us - as beings created in His image and endowed by Him with the ability to reason - from working out what is good and bad, right and wrong for ourselves? Quite obviously people can and do behave very badly although I believe that, given a chance, most people would 'do the right thing'. But the fact that some people behave in antisocial ways is not an argument against the theory of evolution. It does not claim that natural selection will lead to perfect or even optimal solutions just those that are good enough to be better than any alternatives. Equally, the facts that our prisons are filled with offenders who identify themselves as Christian or that a number of prominent pastors have been found not living up to the ideals they proclaim, do not in any way undermine the moral values advocated in the Bible. If anything, our all-too-human failures should teach us all humility and charity, whether believer or atheist. Whatever, if anything, may lie after death, we are fragile and ephemeral beings and we owe it to ourselves to make the best of what fleeting time we are allowed in this form.Seversky_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

btw- it was none other than jimmy carter who recognized the israeli regime as apartheid, and likened it to old south africa. This is our former president speaking.mohammed.husain_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT}

"Is there any doubt that Islamic opinion will not be satisfied until the Israeli state and people are wiped from the face of the map?" Never mind that this is blatantly false (look up Norman Finklestein (reputable Jewish academic) for the numerous Arab proposals for peace (usually include 1967 borders and a negotiation of the Arab right of return), and that the Israeli regime is an apartheid state and that for years and years never recognized the existence of the Palestinian people. Aren't you in a sense justifying violence and terrorism? How many more civialians, women and children will it take for you to recognize it as such. Certainly most of the world recognizes it this way. If you rationalize terrorism, which is no doubt what this is, then are you not sympathetic and complicit in it?mohammed.husain_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

P.S.--"No harm" is Gautama Buddha, not Confucius.Sal Gal_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

StephenB (59): I agree with most of what you say, though the Doctrine of Original Sin (which is, of course, due to Augustine, and not Jesus) is of no use to me.
Very few people do, in fact, love their neighbor as themselves because the price is very high.
No one loves out of fear ("accountability" in the opening article). Certainly no one loves his enemy out of fear of God. And nowhere does Jesus teach anything like that. I have as big issues with theologians who make bizarre dogma out of simple truths as I do with scientists who overvalue science. Perhaps you and others got the impression that I was equating Jesus and Confucius. 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.Sal Gal_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT}

mohammed.husain @ 62
How do you think Atheism and Darwinism have contributed to the blatant disregard for human life on the part of the Israelis in their massacre of Palestinians in Gaza?
My impression is that most Israelis would consider it as offensive to be called atheist as would most Americans or most Muslims. This conflict is just the modern political form of much deeper and more ancient hatreds. Is there any doubt that Islamic opinion will not be satisfied until the Israeli state and people are wiped from the face of the map?Seversky_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

angryoldfatman (53): I agree that, taking socio-political context into account, positive liberty was a large part of Jesus' message. Jesus told the people who were "impure" under Judaic law that their Father loved them, and that He forgave them. He did not manipulate them with threats of damnation. That was the work of saints.Sal Gal_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

The same cannot be said of ID proponents. ID proponents generally argue for ID from pre-existing religious beliefs.
What about religious people who were Darwinists first and ID proponents later based upon the evidence?Patrick_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

jstanley01 @ 60 haha... How about this suggestion for any new sign verbiage: "Considering that we are all chemical reactions. I don't know why I'm compelled so passionately to purchase this advertising space." :PJGuy_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

JGuy @53 As the campaign progresses, they may decide that they need some variety in their wording. So in the spirit of cooperation, I thought I'd offer a couple or two suggestions along the same lines: "Nothing means anything, so don't worry, be happy!" "There is no God who loves you, but at least your dog still does!" "Breathe in and look at the sunset. Aren't accidents are WONDERFUL!" "No heaven, no hell, this droning in my ears is swell!" "Existence is futile, so have a nice day!" "Why the long face? Remember, when you die you're dead forever!" And my favorite: "Look at the bright side! Wait a minute, there is no bright side!"jstanley01_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

----"Sal Gal: "By the way, I did establish many consequences for my son — positive ones. And there are positive psychological and spiritual consequences in practicing the Golden Rule." You are right up to a point. Both Plato and Aristotle believed that, at some level, virtue is its own reward. For them, the good life was inseparable from good conduct. In that context, to follow the natural moral law is to go a long way toward living the good life. From a psychological point of view, this makes perfect sense. The most miserable people in the world are those who are slaves to their own bad habits. There is, however, the big problem of motivation and the problem of facing up to what the natural moral law really entails. Very few people do, in fact, love their neighbor as themselves because the price is very high. Most will not even bother to try unless they understand that they will someday be judged according to that standard. To be a truly good person requires enormous discipline, sacrifice, and GROWTH. In the context of "the fall," we fail more than we succeed. As Chesterton pointed out, we don't need to wonder of the the teaching about "original sin" is true. It proves itself every day in the streets. Further, as crandaddy pointed out, Confucius' exhortation to "do no harm," does not rise to Christ's standard of self-secrificial love. Much less does it exhort us to "love our enemies." The world is full of people who think they are good because they don't commit murder or grand theft. In fact, the more convinced a person is that he is a good person, the more likely it is that he is anything but that. The world's best people have grave doubts about their own goodness because they understand the difference between where they are and where they ought to be.StephenB_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

jstanley01 @ #4 Funny. I was thinking something along those lines. The verbiage they chose for the buses may actually backfire on them. "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life." Some may see this as too much uncertainty. And it sounds more like..."Live as if there's not a God to judge your life - even though we're not actually certain about that." Hey! Eat this yummy looking yellow frog. It's probably not poisonous.JGuy_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

Read... "As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.eceJGuy_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

BarryA and Upright BiPed, I try to keep the opening article in mind when I comment, and assume that others are doing the same. Dembski wrote,
(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.”
I thought my statement that "Eastern ethics do not come from on high" would be read in context. The word "ethics" is short for "ethical theory," Barry. Have you never encountered, say, Plato's Ethics? Confucius is regarded as a humanist, and his ethical theory is somewhat like what is known as a virtue theory in Western thought. Confucian ethics stands in contrast to consequentialist ethics. 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. For many Christians, consequentialism manifests in physical violence against children. Barry, do you think Jesus would have struck "these little ones" to make them good? I believe that the most important form of human learning is modeling. My father gave me beatings, and I struggle to suppress the violence in me. I succeeded in suppressing it in rearing my son -- little punishment, and absolutely no corporal punishment -- and now he does not struggle against a violent nature. He is intrinsically a gentle person, and he treats other people well. By the way, I did establish many consequences for my son -- positive ones. And there are positive psychological and spiritual consequences in practicing the Golden Rule. I refuse to live in Rick Toesw's hell-on-earth: "I’ll be switched if I’m going to concern myself with the good of nameless others rather than my own enjoyment, when there’s no ultimate meaning to it anyway."Sal Gal_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

TheYellowShark: You say "then he or she could not have “created” anything, as “create” logically supposes a TIMEFRAME in which a non-extant object becomes extant at some later TIME." This statement assumes there is only one possible timeframe. And so is thus moot as one must assume a time transcendent being has his own timeframe or something else completely beyond our ability to fathom as time bound agents. Even the multiverse theories assume a different timeframe for each universe. Any God being would not require the timeframe of any physical universe to create. Any supreme being residing outside of 'normal' timeframes (duration and succession) yet able to transcend such would have no problem with creating from within his own unique timeframe. Personally I've always had a problem with the logical consequences of the BB etc., theories claiming that time itself was created along with our universe at the BB. There is another problem with your logic here though; It assumes the universe was indeed created with time (had a specific beginning) - best estimates give around 14.5 billion years ago under BB theory. But atheists cannot not accept a created universe at all. So when the atheist claims as per your timeframe logic,he is intrinsically contradicting himself ... yet again. So we again see that Voltaire at least had atheists pegged right, whatever else he got wrong, when he noted, "The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability."Borne_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

Barry (#39), Sorry, I had you mixed up with someone else. Not for the first time. I'm glad I added "IIRC", as obviously I didn't.Paul Giem_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Seversky wrote:
That said, it seems to me that if there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving Universal Creator of the kind worshipped by Christians it is hard to imagine that He can be harmed in any way by posters on the sides of a few buses or even a few popular books. The fact of their continued existence suggests that He is prepared to at least tolerate lack of belief or disbelief.
Toleration is not approval. What you perceive as toleration is divine patience. First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." [...] But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. Sal Gal wrote:
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.
If you examine the Confucius quote closely (provided the translation is correct, and I believe it is since I've seen it elsewhere), it's not exactly what Jesus said - there is a subtle but crucial difference. Confucius in essence said "Do not ..." where Jesus said "Do ..." This makes the Confucius quote more akin to the Ten Commandments - mostly a code of negative liberties - than to what Jesus said - a description of positive liberty. And allanius above, LOL! Good work there.angryoldfatman_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

So, is Darwinian evolution science or is it simply atheistic philosophy?
Science. Note that in the case of Dawkins--as with every single atheist biologist I know--acceptance of evolutionary theory led to acceptance of atheism, not the other way around. The same cannot be said of ID proponents. ID proponents generally argue for ID from pre-existing religious beliefs.
The arguments for and against ID or evolution stand on the evidence, not on the beliefs of the people espousing them.
Indeed. But you should probably direct your comment to Dembski, as I was replying to an argument that *he* made.TheYellowShark_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington @ 40
Seversky, re [35], you wonder why Christians take umbrage with the ads because they don’t hurt God. You suggest that perhaps those who take umbrage do so because their faith is weak. You fail to take into account another possibility. Hurting those whom Christ called “these little ones” is one of the gravest sins. In fact, Christ said that if anyone causes one of these little ones to stumble it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast in the sea.
I can see that as an objection from a Christian perspective although an atheist would no doubt reply that teaching children what are, from an atheist perspective, myths is not good for them either. My own view is that the posters are likely to be harmless either way. The effect any poster might have on the thinking of a child is going to be insignificant compared to the daily teachings and examples of their parents.Seversky_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

And are you claiming you don’t feel an innate desire to be selfish?
Not denying that at all. But I live a decent life. I don't commit any crimes. I don't think I really commit any Christian "sins" either, with the exceptions of: 1) blasphemy 2) heresy 3) looking at a woman with "lust in my heart" (And each one of those is a victimless crime, so I fail to see how they are *ethical* violations in any way.) So in my case, my innate desire to be good outweighs my innate desire to be selfish, and I would guess that this is the reason that most--if not all--people who are good are good. Sometimes I make mistakes, just like anyone else, but when I do I apologize and try not to make the same mistake again. Fear of God's reprisal is not even a remote consideration in my evaluation of ethics.TheYellowShark_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

"Eastern ethics do not come from on high." How do you know? (without design, there are no Eastern ethics)Upright BiPed_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

“But we must, we must do something. ID is just too obvious. If the ignorant herd really latch onto a thing like that, anything could happen. We could be looking at a second Inquisition.” “I know, I know; just when we thought we had purged the creationist cancer from the academy and purified science, we find it mutating into a new and far more deadly form. Crystals, I tell them, crystals—and they laugh in my face!” “Thus have they treated all prophets, my friend. But it must be stopped, and it must be stopped now. You and I and Harris had a little success with the books, but I’m afraid it was not enough. The media have forgotten already. There was a time when we could have counted on them to drive up the noise level indefinitely, like they did with that brilliant Da Vinci Code. But now they all seem fixated on this ‘great depression’ silliness. As if anything else mattered, should this battle be lost.” “It cannot be lost. Dear God—or whoever—please do not let it be lost. But what must we do?” “I don’t know. I’ll tell you frankly (pass the sugar, please), I am worried. We can’t fool around this time. There’s too much at stake. We need to throw a rock through a window. We need something big. We need something so strategic, so incisive…in short, so utterly devastating that all the cretins like Dembski will crawl back quivering into their caves.” “I know! I’ve got it! We can put an announcement on our London busses. Everyone sees those.” “A rolling advertisement for atheism, as it were. Genius!” “Yes, we could say something really clever, like, ‘God is dead; long live King Richard!’” “Flattering, but I fear the ‘God is dead’ thing has been done. And while I am England’s foremost philosopher, I’m not certain that they ready to make me king.” “All right; try this, then. ‘God has never been seen. Why do you still believe?’” “Too direct. We don’t want to challenge them and make them defensive. We want to seem like their friends; like we care about their well-being. Which of course we do.” “Yes, yes; of course. Wait a minute—I’ve got it. How about, ‘There’s probably no God. The world’s greatest philosophers agree.’ That would be you and I, of course.” “I like the first part. Friendly, engaging, the common touch. But the word ‘philosopher’ undoes it. The people we’re trying to reach don’t have the respect for philosophers that you and I have. But how about this: ‘There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.’” “Beautiful! Why Richard, that’s poetry. Invite them to entertain the possibility, and then seal it with a promise. Now all we need do is raise a little money." "That shouldn’t be hard. We could probably get enough just from our colleagues at university.” “So we have a plan, and a devastating one, if I may say so. Let’s see what the hoi polloi have to say about this." "Danny, you are more precious to me than woman. This certainly is a beautiful friendship we share.”allanius_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Vox rocks. With regard to Dollo's Law, las week, there was a thread about IC & bicycles and unicycles. It is not disqualifyingly improbable for a bicycle to "evolve" to a unicycle via Darwinian mechanisms (accident plus selection) You are riding your Schwinn Stingray, your front wheel falls off and you do a wheelie all the way home. Everybody thinks you are cool and you choose to leave the bike like that. Then all your friends start doing the same thing. Darwinian devolution in action. It is disqualifyingly improbable, however, for a unicycle to "evolve" into a bicycle in a Darwinian fashion.tribune7_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

TheYellowShark-Are you admitting that you are only moral because you believe that God is watching? You don’t feel an innate desire to be good? And are you claiming you don't feel an innate desire to be selfish?tribune7_{January 9, 2009
January
01
Jan
9
09
2009
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply