The ‘probably’ word
16.12.09 | simon | 
Email This Post
Due to questioning of the use of ‘probably’ in the slogan, we thought it wise to write a blog post to explain the idea further. The use of ‘probably’ is a strength of the campaign. No one can say for certain that any gods exist or don’t exist – that would require blind faith.
You can’t disprove unicorns, the tooth fairy, Zeus, or any gods but what you can say is that there is no solid evidence to think they exist. This campaign uses ‘probably’ to say that although you can’t disprove things like unicorns and fairies, you can say there’s not a shred of evidence for the thousands of gods that humans have ever worshipped.
Atheism is a positive statement about the limits of knowledge. Rather than taking a religious-like leap of faith and saying that there definitely is a god or definitely isn’t a god, atheists just say that there’s as much evidence for the Christian God as there is for Zeus or any other supernatural thing. That is, zilch.
Theists on the other hand think they know the one true god out of the literally thousands that have ‘existed’. And, in fact, they often refer to this god as their Personal God – one personal god for everyone. This is interesting as a recent study has shown that peoples’ own personal beliefs tend to align very well with what they think God thinks. Of course there’s no reason to think that God exists in anything more than a person’s imagination.
December 18th, 2009 at 10:37 am
opps…i mean:
i don’t know about you but based on this post you sound rather more like an agnostic than an *atheist.
December 18th, 2009 at 10:50 am
@bobroberts
“Thats saying the theory of ‘ta da’ is perfectly acceptable yet science isn’t.”
haha i love how you refer to creationism as the ‘ta da’ theory. i always kinda thought that about the ‘big bang’. seems rather hard to wrap my head around and event he most educated believers have had great difficulty trying to explain this theory to me
December 18th, 2009 at 10:51 am
If we aren’t to worry then the ‘probably’ is a contradiction. ‘Probably’ is saying that not only can a notion of god/metaphysical be entertained but also that such notioning in the first place is OK. It is a sad legacy from our primitive past to still waste time ‘notioning’/imagining about the supernatural – probably to quell that fear that erupted with our developing imigination/cognition. Fundamentally (evoultionarily/biologically) we just exist and for the sake of conservation/effeciency let’s both stop and shun all the preoccupation with considering that which is originates only in our imagination -the supernatural/metaphysical. Look at all the wasted time, energy, and lives that have resulted from this, eg religion.
December 18th, 2009 at 10:55 am
@Cameron James
First, as an American living in “the Bible Belt” heartland of the U.S., I encounter a plethora of religious folks. Your comment about “uneducated” holds no beef here. I have only my own observations here to back this up, but a majority of the “super Christians” I meet are the very first to dismiss any idea which may even approach the non-existence of God. I have literally seen people get up and walk out of a Geology lecture at my college when we were on the topic of the age of the Earth and corresponding evidence (clearly they were Young-Earth Creationists). I have seen people get up and walk out of a Biology lecture when we were discussing evolution. If you are going to accuse anyone of dismissing something, it is indeed this stubborn group of people.
Now, I will admit, I can be very stubborn when in a debate, but the fact remains that I am willing to debate, not simply walk away. I develped my opinions via debating with people and considering all ideas and deciding for myself the validity of their arguments. When an individual tells me that I am “the devil tempting their faith” by simply dsicussing topics which imply the non-existence of any god, I can’t help but question his/her sanity.
Also, in the summer I work for my county engineering department and I meet a lot of contractors as a job-site inspector. No offense to any of these people and it may seem like I’m stereotyping, but they are typically high-school dropouts, or have no education beyond high school. A majority of these people have tattoos of crosses and such to exhibit their devout faith. One individual even calls himself “the Preacher.” He claims he used to be a drug-dealing alcoholic with no future until he “found God” and was “born again.” This person who hands out anti-evolution pamphlets and Bibles to everyone cannot speak proper English or even do simple addition without the assistance of a calculator. Yet, according to your claim, I am the uneducated one because I acknowledge the massive lack of supportive evidence of anything supernatural, especially God?
It is clearly you who is dismissive and uneducated based on your statement: “..do you suppose it all just happened to be conicidentally?” If you actually took the time and effort to learn about evolution and other natural processes beyond simply Googling them, you would learn that the way everything works together is not a simple coincidence. Processes shaped and formed them over very long periods of time. I can see how easy it is to simply look around and see the complexity and beauty of everything and atrribute that to an intelligent creator of some sort. Similarly, it is easy for children to imagine fairy tales and supernatural as reality. This precise reason is why churches focus on children: sunday school, youth groups, etc.. Their developing minds, which have not had the opportunity to properly develop critical analyzation skills, are very susceptible to accepting the simple explanations of “God did it” which they are constantly spoon-fed. A majority are even taught that science is only trying to confuse and fool them from the truth.
As far as “just happening,” maybe this rough summary could help: everything fits together so well not because they were willed to be by some supernatural being that exists outside our time and space, but because of natural processes; basically those things that didn’t fit in with everything else so well, ceased to be because they did not work out. Exctinction of species shows us examples of this.
There are many arguments against design which I won’t go into seeing as this post is already long enough, but for myself, as well as a majority of scientists out there, there is no observable evidence of the supernatural, therefore critical analysis is needed. Through these analyses, we have done a very good job so far at explaining the natural world without the need of primitive supernatural beliefs. Everyone must keep in mind that science itself is relatively young; of course there is plenty out there we really simply aren’t sure about, but I would bet that given enough time, we will.
I support atheism because it nurtures a reasoning, critical mind; something lacking throughtout the world. A few signs on busses here and there is not nearly enough publicity as atheism deserves. I don’t see how people have the gull to be offended by a simple sign such as this when I see giant billboards on my drive up to college that say in bold letters: “PREPARE TO MEET THY GOD”. Superstition has ruled mankind long enough. It is time for reason to be in charge.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:26 am
I actually agree with ‘No Worries’. I would think most Atheists would prefer for the word ‘probably’ to not be there. And if this campaign is representing atheists, then it does have to take their views into account.
I suggest a Poll should be taken to determine what the majority atheistic view is out there, as I could be in the minority.
Also, as I have said before, the ‘probably’ campaign which started in UK was a DIRECT response to a Christian Ad that also ran on buses. And the word ‘probably’ was only put in place upon advice from the Committee of Advertising Practice, otherwise, it wouldn’t have been there.
Taken out of that context, it doesn’t make much sense.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:47 am
@Alex
Trying to divide and conquer? Few Atheists are going to get jumpy about whether this is strictly an Agnostic or Atheist position. They’re both inherently anti-dogmatic perspectives, so your attempt to divert the argument with ‘divide and conquer’ quibbling?
“haha i love how you refer to creationism as the ‘ta da’ theory. i always kinda thought that about the ‘big bang’.”
That must be why all the physicists believe in creationism…..
December 18th, 2009 at 11:48 am
I don’t know how much I actually like the word ‘probably’ in the advertisment. But if it took a ‘probably’ to get the nod from the advertising company, if a go-ahead rested on the presence of that word, then that’s the way it’s got to be.
I know others will disagree, but we live in a society where religionists have to be catered to most of the time. If we didn’t put the word ‘probably’ in the advertisement, imagine the shitstorm which would’ve eventuated, giving us no recourse to debate because of the 100% determined certainty of the statement.
I myself am 100% certain there is no God. And I agree that atheism isn’t about “maybe”, it’s about a total lack of belief.
And I don’t agree that 100% certainty is a faith-based position either. That makes those of us who ARE 100% certain of the non-existence of God sound like religionists in our own right.
The whole ‘probably’ thing makes me somewhat uncomfortable, but I recognise the need for the word to be there and that’s enough for me.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:55 am
@alex
There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, many people (believers and unbelievers) tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.
Hope this helps
December 18th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
@Jon Pawson But we haven’t yet established that we actually need the word ‘probably’ here in NZ? Our advertising standards may be different. And why should we cater for religionists, that’s going against everything we stand for, which is, religion should be free to be discussed, just like politics and any other issue that impacts humans to such a degree, without religionists going mental and stigmatising the discusser.
I personally would prefer ‘There almost certainly is no god’ keeping in line with the title of chapter 4 in Richard Dawkins’ God Delusion ‘Why There Almost Certainly Is No God’.
We don’t say “There probably is no Spaghetti Monster”. We say “There is no Spaghetti Monster”.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
@alex @bobroberts Best explanation about the Universe including the Big Bang Theory from the renowned physicist Laurence Krauss here: http://www.simplyreason.com/2009/12/universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence.html . Brilliant.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Thanks Shama
I take pride that I was actually at the AAI conference this year in Burbank.. Many americans were amazed to met a guy from NZ at the conference
but its great to see it online as well….
December 18th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
You know a movement is really a movement when there’s enough members that a) they argue over their slogans and collective name, and b) those arguments are both old and familiar.
^_^
Personally, I’m happy with ‘probably’.
Philosophically, as far as I can tell, a provisional knowledge system is the only such system that is honest and actually works. To me, ‘probably’ is as good as we can reasonably hope for, and any pretense of ‘certainly’ is an act of hypocrisy.
And practically, I like the use of the word ‘probably’ precisely because it gives the religious who want to criticize us something to grasp at. It gets them to engage with us, which to me is the point.
Because I don’t think it’s possible or even desirable for atheists to try to convert religious believers to disbelief. Don’t get me wrong: I’d prefer it if people weren’t religious, and I’ll happily step forward and attempt to persuade a believer out of their belief in the right situations.
But in general, I think it’s better to point out that a believer has every right to believe whatever they want, regardless of how foolish we think it is – but that at the same time, we have the right to think that belief is foolish, and say so openly.
The whole idea to me is to bring us out in the open, and make it normal that an atheist doesn’t have to walk on eggshells in the presence of a believer. To imprint the idea that atheists are rational, reasonable, normal human beings just like everyone not only on the minds of closeted atheists, but even – or perhaps especially – on the minds of religious believers.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
all people are part of the human experience,the way we see colour is only seen that way by humans,
i think that the only truth we have are the facts that we come across during our life time,
all the paranormal beliefs we have are due to the human imagination and ego,
eg,,,,im human and to important to die,so there must be some thing else,arrogance is a force to be reconed with
even houdini couldnt get back,
so, if all humans disappeared tomorrow,so would god,guardian angels,sin,purgatory,etc,etc,
oh yea ,,and doctor who,
December 18th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Daniel, very well said, thanks for contributing.
No progress can be made without opening the door first. ‘Probably’ does that well. Besides, “almost certainly” is too rigorous for a bus ad.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I just LOL’ed out loud at work, because your comment opens with ‘simon Says:’
^_^
Which is, of course, unworthy. Thanks for the kind words, Simon.
Also: Given the color selection is fluorescent pinks and oranges, I really don’t think that harsh, austere, pedantically-constructed philosophical assertions would really fit with the overall design scheme. On the other hand, ‘probably’ cuts the mustard.
December 18th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
touch your toes
December 18th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Last time I heard those words was when I was an altar boy….
December 18th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
@Daniel Schealler I don’t think ‘probably’ is ‘as good as we can reasonably hope for’, as you put it. You wouldn’t say “Imaginary things probably don’t exist” as that is obviously an oxymoron where one would clearly contradict themself. Also, I don’t quite get your point on how omitting or replacing the word ‘probably’ equates to trying to convert believers.
However, I wholeheartedly agree with your other point that the word ‘probably’ will give religious folks ammo to criticise, hence starting the conversation, which is the aim of this initiative.
Regardless of having or not having the word ‘probably’, the slogan really isn’t that great as I am sure we can come up with something more intelligent. But I guess we have to ‘dumb it down’ to get the point across
They did this one in Italy which I like ‘I prefer to reason rather than believe. That’s why I’m an atheist’(http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4588)
And my personal fav : Don’t pray in my school, and I won’t think in your church
December 18th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
@Shama
“You wouldn’t say “Imaginary things probably don’t exist” as that is obviously an oxymoron where one would clearly contradict themself.”
In casual conversation? I probably wouldn’t, I’ll grant you.
But if we want to get really technical and pedantic… I always consider any time I use the term I know X to mean X is the best conclusion I can draw based on the currently available evidence.
So if I was being overly technical, then yes, I would say: Imaginary things probably don’t exist.
Or more likely, I’d say: Based on the currently available evidence, the best conclusion we can draw is that imaginary things don’t exist.
And given that we don’t know what evidence the future will bring until it arrives in the present, we can never know for certain that our current ‘best’ conclusions will always remain that way.
That’s what I meant when I said that ‘probably’ is the best we can hope for.
“Also, I don’t quite get your point on how omitting or replacing the word ‘probably’ equates to trying to convert believers.”
Fair enough – omitting the term wouldn’t necessarily do that. It just… feels that way to me, I guess. I’ll grant that’s hardly water-tight support for my case.
Just considering the following three slogans:
1) There is no God.
2) There is almost certainly no God.
3) There’s probably no God.
I guess I’m not fully logically justified in my conclusion… but in terms of how the performance of the respective slogans play out in my head, the use of ‘probably’ comes across as less of an attempt to persuade, and more as an attempt to engage.
Perhaps it’s just me, but I doubt it.
“Regardless of having or not having the word ‘probably’, the slogan really isn’t that great as I am sure we can come up with something more intelligent. But I guess we have to ‘dumb it down’ to get the point across
”
I know that was just an off-hand comment – but it’s another one of my favorite topics, and I just can’t resist the opportunity. ^_^
It’s a bit misleading to imply that atheism is equivalent to intelligence. Sure, there may happen to be a correlation. However, there many intelligent religious believers in the world. More importantly, I also think that you don’t have to be all that clever to recognize the flaws in religious arguments.
It frequently doesn’t seem that way. Theology and the criticism thereof often get dressed up in lots of showy words, so it attracts people who are into that kind of thing. But the core of the arguments are actually very simple and straightforward. Anyone can engage with them.
Note that I don’t have anything against intellectual elitism in general terms – I am something of an intellectual elitist, after all. ^_^
But in the context of atheism, I think it’s important to point out, as frequently as possible, that you don’t have to be particularly clever to engage in the discussion.
Critical thinking isn’t so much hard as it is unfamiliar.
December 18th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
@Daniel
re Shama’s comment about “imaginary” and “probably” in the same sentence – yes it is an oxymoron. If something is imaginary, it doesn’t exist.
I believe everyone understands what is meant by the two key words in the slogan – probably (in that you can’t disprove the existence of something) and God (meaning the all-knowing spiritual entity that many people believe created the earth, mankind and the universe).
I’m certain there is no God (as per the above definition) but I can’t prove it. I can only point to the complete absence of evidence of such a being. And if someone could prove to me categorically that there was such a being, I have but one question: who created that being?
In fact there are thousands of gods, leading inevitably to the question of which one or ones should we worship, if worshipping is your thing? As Homer J Simpson (as good a prophet as I’ve found) asked in one of his more profound moments, “What if there’s more than one god, and we’ve been praying to the wrong one? We’ll be making him madder and madder every week!”
There are of course many intelligent believers in all sorts of gods, and undoubtedly many stupid atheists. I agree completely that it is less a matter of intelligence than the ability to think rationally and critically.
It’s unfortunate that the view of most religions is that “if you’re not with jesus/allah/ganesh/buddha/darth vader/ then you must be with the devil/infidel/”, rather than “if you don’t believe in god then tell me why not.” This enlightened and tolerant approach would pretty much end religions overnight and the world would be a much better and more peaceful place, so of course it will never happen.
I love the quote “Don’t pray in my school, and I won’t think in your church.” And I’m hugely enjoying the debate.
December 18th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
@Therearelotsofgods:
If in the future substantial evidence is revealed to strongly support the theory that everything that can be imagined exists somewhere – perhaps some kind of multiple universe theory – then the statement ‘That which is imaginary does not exist’ would no longer be the best conclusion we could draw from the available evidence.
It’s not a potential that I take at all seriously. Based on the evidence we currently do have, and the fact that the prior plausibility is so low, it is of course ridiculous to suppose otherwise.
But nevertheless – technically, imaginary things could exist. They very, very, very, very, very probably don’t. But they could, so it’s technically incorrect to state that they certainly don’t.
The only alternative is to make the statement into a circular tautology, by defining ‘imaginary’ as something that does not exist… But that’s just playing with semantics. The trivially true is so boring. O_o
I’m actually a little bit surprised that people aren’t more familiar with the concept of a provisional knowledge system.
December 18th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
@Daniel Schealler I think Shama’s point regarding “dumb it down” is that for this to have mass appeal and start the conversation, it does actually have to remain rather simple. Coming from the advertising world I know just how simple the masses are!
I would agree there are a great many intelligent believers, however I do think the great majority of them only believe because of the childhood brainwashing that goes on in every religion.
Fascinating discussion people, keep it up!
December 18th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
@Intrigued:
I know what you mean.
But coming from the advertising world, I’m sure you’d agree that frequent repetition of talking points is a good method to lead to their eventual acceptance.
I saw the opportunity to harp on about one of my pet topics, so I took it. ^_^
December 18th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
@Daniel
It’s clear you like to argue, and as it happens so do I, so let’s indulge each other a while longer
“I’m actually a little bit surprised that people aren’t more familiar with the concept of a provisional knowledge system.”
Many of us are familiar with this concept but I don’t see the relevance to your post. Provisional knowledge is knowledge that you assume to be correct for now, even though you strongly believe that in the future it will most likely change.
But you don’t believe it will change, unless you contradict your own statements that “It’s not a potential that I take at all seriously. Based on the evidence we currently do have, and the fact that the prior plausibility is so low, it is of course ridiculous to suppose otherwise.”
and “[imaginary things] very, very, very, very, very probably don’t [exist].
I should also clarify (not change) the definition of imaginary, because imaginary things do of course exist, but only in one’s imagination i.e. not in the real world.
Even using your theory that in some form of alternate or future universe things that we currently think are imaginary turn out to be real, they can’t then be termed imaginary, because it defeats the definition of the word.
You may well then state that God exists (if in fact that turns out to be the case, which neither of us believes), but you can no longer say he/she/it is imaginary.
You may call it semantics, but if you’re presenting an argument based on a completely new definition of the word it’s only fair to point out where you’re going wrong.
December 18th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
@Therearelotsofgods:
Ha! Now we’re just getting really self-indulgent.
We have a different take on provisional knowledge. Where you say:
“Provisional knowledge is knowledge that you assume to be correct for now, even though you strongly believe that in the future it will most likely change,”
I would say:
“Provisional knowledge is knowledge that you assume to be correct for now.”
And that’s where I leave it. Even if I don’t expect provisional knowledge to change, I nonetheless thought that part of being ‘provisional’ knowledge is that it is… well… provisional. That it’s only considered to be ‘the best current conclusion’ when providing the evidence we currently have. End of sentence.
I my defense, I didn’t think that was particularly new.
As for the definition thing:
I’ve always considered that things that are trivially true by definition don’t really count as knowledge, because they’re disconnected from evidence. To me, for something to even qualify as actual knowledge it has to be connected to reality in some way. Definitions don’t involve reality checks. They involve inside-of-your-own-head checks.
Definitions are still interesting, useful, and necessary. But I don’t consider the trivially true – that is to say, the true by definition – to qualify as knowledge. Because definitions are things that we make up. They’re inside-of-your-own-head-checks, not reality-checks.
So if it’s trivially true by definition that the imaginary cannot exist, this isn’t certainly true, which to me implies knowledge connected to reality. Instead, it is trivially true.
Perhaps that does count as a kind of knowledge, if you want to define ‘knowledge’ along those lines.
But in my original comment, I was mostly concerned with the relationship between knowledge and evidence, so that was the context I assumed.
But we’re getting into circles here. I think we should let the topic rest soon, if only to spare our audience. ^_^
December 18th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
@Daniel
Well, if your definition of definition is “something that exists only in your head” and therefore the definition of imaginary is “an opinion that exists only in your head about something that exists only in your head” then my brain hurts and I’m off to the pub.
Happy to call it a draw, and a good weekend to you sir.
December 18th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
@Therearelotsofgods:
*raises beer bottle*
Gentleman and a scholar, Thereare.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Great to see the level of discourse here!
On the topic of the word “probably”, as an atheist I find it entirely appropriate. I would also disagree with anyone who would suggest that it weakens the point made.
When something is “probable”, it sounds to me that it’s is more likely to be true than not. Saying it’s probable that no gods exist is logical, and technically more accurate then saying that no gods exist.
I would consider the statement “there is no god” true in relaxed conversation, but when applied to a nationwide bus campaign, it is too stark.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
It’s not the ‘probably’ that bothers me. It’s the ‘Now stop worrying and enjoy your life’ that does, slightly.
I don’t think Atheists ought to be telling others how to live their lives – if people want to worry and not enjoy their lives, they should feel comfortable doing so.
It’s this that bothers me about religious types as well – I don’t care much what their personal beliefs are, but they have no business telling other people how to live their lives.
December 19th, 2009 at 12:15 am
@ Hamish
“Trying to divide and conquer?”
Not at all. just simply making an observation. no ulterior motive.
“That must be why all the physicists believe in creationism…..”
and while i appreciate the sarcasm…
not all physicists are atheist or agnostic either. i prefer to avoid such broad sweeping statements.
@bobroberts
i very much appreciate your clear and concise explanation of the common misconceptions regarding the big bang. it was one i was unaware of (well the complete absence of any explosion that is…i was aware of the expansion that is believed to have existed since).
the only thing i really wonder about is where the initial infinitesimally small balloon came from.
but thank you.
ver interesting discussion. most ppl i encounter would rather just not think about any of it.