Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Stop Worrying

Entry 926, on 2009-01-15 at 20:09:10 (Rating 3, Religion)

I subscribe to an email newsletter from the Richard Dawkins Foundation. If you don't know, the RDF is an organisation, headed by well know evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, which promotes science, rationality, atheism and humanism. One of the more prominent activities atheists have engaged in recently in Britain is the "probably no god" campaign which encourages people to stop worrying about the consequences of the possible existence of a god.

The slogan appearing in the advertising on buses this time is: "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life". Its a good slogan because its honest and direct, it offers practical advice which everyone can use, and its just a little bit different.

How many advertising campaigns make a claim which includes the word "probably"? That's real honesty! Can you imagine a church recruitment campaign starting with the line "our god probably exists and we might have the correct interpretation of his wishes", or a product advertisement starting with "our new product is probably quite good so you should consider the possibility of buying it". Most advertising is dishonest. I usually refer to PR and advertising people as "professional liars" because that's usually what they are. But it seems to me the atheist advertisement is really in the spirit of honesty, skepticism and uncertainty that true atheism demands.

So what is this "true atheism" I refer to? Well, many people would say that atheists are as bad as believers because they are certain there is no god and that is something we cannot be certain about (the fact that many believers seem certain there is a god seems to be OK to them). But the atheists I know readily admit we can't be 100% certain about the existence or non-existence of a god. To many people they would be agnostics because they are uncertain about god's existence, but I don't think that's true.

Atheism is defined as the theory or belief that God does not exist. Agnosticism is defined as belief that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. If I had examined the evidence and concluded that the likelihood that god exists is practically zero and therefore formulated the theory that he doesn't I would call myself an atheist. And that's what all the atheists I know believe. There is always doubt, but the current theory, based on extensive evidence, is that a god doesn't exist.

But what about the argument that, even if there just a tiny chance a god exists its best to act as if he does just to cover that possibility. Well does that mean we should believe the steady state theory instead of the big bang just in case its true? Why do religious theories demand special treatment? Why is the level of evidence required for them so much less than other theories? Well I can tell you why. Its because there is almost no evidence supporting religious theories so without special treatment they would disappear.

The atheist slogan implies that people worry about the existence of god. Is that true? Well anecdotally it seems to me that it is. I know many people who prefer to believe just so that they are covered if god turns out to be true. They seem to think that if they pretend to be true believers - even when they have genuine doubt - that will somehow be accepted by their god and they will be accepted into heaven or whatever other myth is attached to their belief system.

This is silly, of course. If there is a god and if he has any interest in what people think then he will easily see through any attempt at subterfuge. It seems to me that he would have more respect for people whose actions follow what they genuinely believe instead of those who live a false life.

But what about the Bible? Doesn't it insist that we should worship god? Well yes, but there's one thing I know with virtual certainty: if there is a god his description in the Bible has no bearing whatsoever on what he's really like. Not only is the Bible irrelevant in studying the characteristics of god but its one of the worst books you could take notice of because it describes a god of a type which is highly unlikely to exist.

I mean, can you imagine a god so powerful that he created the whole universe but being so jealous, illogical, and inconsistent as the one described in the Bible? And can you imagine a god who really cares about the minutiae of our lives like he does? It doesn't make any sense to me. If there is a god we would be far better off forgetting about all the current religions and doing a real investigation into his characteristics.

Actually, I've got a better idea. Just take the advice of the atheist campaign: There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life!

Comment 1 (1870) by SBFL on 2009-01-17 at 05:00:26:

With regards to the atheism recruitment campaign...sorry, so do athiests want it both ways or not? The conclusion of your post is not clear.

Atheism is defined as the theory or belief that God does not exist.
- Heh, so you now acknowlegde it is a belief system now? ;-)

There is always doubt, but the current theory, based on extensive evidence, is that a god doesn't exist.
- Sorry, what is this extensive evidence you speak of? I thought that it was the absence of evidence that athesists used to support their theory/belief?

Re the 2 paragraphs with the first starting with But what about the Bible?...
Iīm surprised you take the Bible so literally ;-)

Comment 2 (1871) by OJB on 2009-01-17 at 10:37:42:

Not sure what you mean when you ask if atheists want it both ways. Could you clarify?

The word "belief" was part of the dictionary definition. Belief can mean many things, from an unreasonable blind faith to a logical conclusion based on evidence. Hopefully most atheists tend towards the more logical end of the belief spectrum.

The evidence would be that, for most theories of god which can be stated (there are many, and most are mutually exclusive) we can show that its unlikely to be true. Example: the claim that god answers prayers but the empirical evidence that prayer doesn't work. Also, absence of supporting evidence can be loosely thought of as presence of negating evidence.

I take the Bible seriously to the extent that it affects the lives of many people: sometimes positively but many times negatively. Obviously I don't take it literally myself but I need to address the idea of its description of god.

Comment 3 (1872) by SBFL on 2009-01-17 at 11:31:41:

That the UK atheism recruitment campaign you spent many paragraphs discussing indicate that atheists donīt believe there is a God but also leave the possibility open that he does exist. Thatīs "wanting it both ways". Pretty straightforward I would have thought (and a message attractive to those wanting cover).

-

So in English, Iīm right.

Yes, I know you prefer to look at extreme cases as it makes it easier to justify your views.

Comment 4 (1874) by OJB on 2009-01-18 at 14:51:10:

The correct approach to a problem from a scientific perspective is to test various hypotheses, decide on the best one and create a theory, then continually test that theory. Nothing is ever beyond question, and nothing is ever assumed to be absolutely correct.

That's where people should be with atheism too. The god hypotheses are tested, found to be lacking in credibility, so atheism is the best interim theory. However new evidence should always be looked at and maybe atheism might need to be abandoned if the new evidence is sufficiently good. So far it hasn't been.

No, you are wrong. We devise tests to see if god exists or not. The tests indicate he doesn't. Therefore that's evidence he doesn't exist. Contrary to popular opinion, it is possible to prove (or at least find evidence for) a negative.

So these "extreme cases" are people who take the Bible seriously? Does that mean that to be a Christian moderate you must not take it seriously?

Comment 5 (1881) by SBFL on 2009-01-24 at 01:18:27:

Would still love to see the "extensive evidence" rather than the mere negative logical tests you are running now. How about you stop hiding behind that pointy hat for a few minutes?

What it means is that you often compare to an extreme views to make it nice and easy to justify your point. Itīs called taking the easy route. Anyone can do it.

Comment 6 (1883) by OJB on 2009-01-24 at 21:53:19:

All of the major hypotheses which arise from the theories that there is a god have been shown to be false. All the creation myths have been shown to be false. All the interactions gods have with the real world (prayer, etc) cannot be demonstrated as real. Logical and philosophical arguments can be easily shown to be invalid. Any theory which is tested and shown to be false should be rejected.

Sometimes I criticise extreme views because its those which annoy me the most and they are the most dangerous. I don't think that was the case this time though, was it?

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.