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 19th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Probably should definitely not be used, technically, as pointed out by other writers to this site, but also because its a weak word and this campaign needs strength if it is to hit home hard enough.
How anyone can look at all the carnage, cruelty and destruction in this world, and still believe in a divine being, capable of healing all ills, gives serious cause for concern about the limited mental capacity of mankind as a species …
I’m prepared to contribute to this campaign but I want to see something hard hitting and to the point. No probably, no maybe.
I have the http://www.god.co.nz website which has never been used. Would it be of use ? Gratis of course.
December 20th, 2009 at 10:00 am
@David Blackmore:
I don’t speak for Simon or the campaign, obviously. I’m just a contributer.
However: Have you considered running an advertising campaign of your own?.
Criticism is always a good thing, of course. However, the tone and intention of this campaign was set out pretty much at the very start. Even the color palette used in the website and advertising design points to ‘bright and friendly’ rather than ‘hard hitting and confrontational’.
I’ve always considered one of the strengths of the atheist movement is that we don’t all have to agree on things. There’s no centrally binding dogma. So if you don’t like the wording of the current campaign, and don’t want to contribute because of it: That’s fine!
And if you want to raise your own voice in your own way, then that’s fine too! Judging from some of the comments here, there are other people who feel as you do. So I’m sure there are people out there that would be willing to lend their voices and donations to your cause as well/instead.
You clearly have a strong opinion, an idea as to how an atheist campaign should be run, and enough technical nouse to understand domain-name registration. As far as I see it, there’s little stopping you.
December 20th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Why Kiwis need to make a stand and denounce the defacing of the Christian billboard : http://www.simplyreason.com/2009/12/why-kiwis-need-to-make-stand-and.html What do you think?
December 20th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
@David Blackmore
I suspect that most of the people who contributed to this fund, did so with the expectation that the already publicised slogan would be adopted.
@Shama
I don’t think we need get our knickers in a twist over this. To regard the vandalising of a billboard by a couple of individuals as “suppressing freedom of speech” is a bit of an over-reaction.
It’s usually the religious who are overly sensitive about being “offended”, not us rationlists – as this amusing saga aptly demonstrates.
December 20th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
I ran the slogan past a number of like minded friends today, and the word “probably” just didn’t do it for any of them, at all, it’s just too compromising was the verdict.
I remember a picture of a young Indian boy standing in flood waters, and he said to the journalist “I don’t know where god was when the floods came, I didn’t see him there when the waters took my family away”.
There is no god. Not probably. There is no god.
That is Atheism. If this is an Atheist campaign, get rid of probably.
December 20th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
@Robert Not sure if you actually read the article as that’s not exactly what it was all about. However, pardon me for being quite so forthright, but it’s attitude like yours that let people get away with doing wrong things in the name of religion. I somehow don’t think that if we had put up an Atheist billboard that was vandalised in the same way, you’d be saying what you’re saying now. Either we stand against allowing unlawful acts in the name of religion, or we don’t. Cannot have double standards.
December 20th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Also, thanks for the feedback Robert. I both appreciate and enjoy a good debate. Sustains the mind
December 20th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
@David Blackmore
May I respectfully suggest that you and your like-minded friends start your own “There is definitely no god” campaign, and stop trying to change the wording of this one?
You’ll probably enjoy it more
December 20th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
“There is no god. Not probably. There is no god.”
David, such a proposition is scientifically unprovable.
Such an assertion is no different from the converse claim that “there is a god”.
“Probably” may not have the clout of an unequival statement but it is technically correct and therefore defensible.
December 20th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
OK, for arguments sake, lets say there’s possibly a god then shall we, even though an Atheist should say there isn’t …
This god, whatever he, she, or it happens to be, is one sick puppy to let a few thousand years of wars, rape, genocide, torture etc go unchallenged, when one click of the almighty fingers could have put an end to it all.
I maintain “there is no god” is the correct slogan.
That will surely provoke more debate than inserting “probably” into it.
I’m not worried about offending the Christians and other faith followers who have been offending me with the repetitious drivel of their blind faith for so long.
I note in the translation of the fundamentalist Koran it says ” all man shall convert to the one true faith of Islam, and he that does not shall be put to the sword “. Now THAT is offensive !
Perhaps I should pay for my own billboards.
Anyone want to contribute to a “THERE IS NO GOD” campaign can contact me : 6 {at} 66.co(.)nz
December 20th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
I think it’s an important distinction. To me, the label “atheist” doesn’t mean “one who believes deities don’t exist”. Such absolutism simply isn’t provable and cannot be defended. Moreover, the word “believes” itself implies a faith position.
My own definition of an atheist is: “one who doesn’t believe deities exist”. This may seem like a subtle difference but it emphasizes that not believing (in anything) is the atheist’s default position.
“Probably” is our most rational conclusion, based on reason and the available evidence.
December 21st, 2009 at 6:44 am
@Robert You say: ““Probably” is our most rational conclusion, based on reason and the available evidence.”
That is not a correct statement. Our most rational conclusion is that ‘there is no evidence for the existence of a god or any other supernatural deity’.
@David Blackmore The purpose of this campaign is to engage the other side and start a conversation, and ‘probably’ would be more effective than an absolute statement.
I agree with you that it’s not technically correct, but I also think that it’s a small point when taking into account the broader objective of this initiative.
As long as it’s effective in starting the debate in society regarding religion and god, that’s the first step and what matters most.
Also, great to see so many different viewpoints. As Dawkins said “Organising atheists is like herding cats, because they tend to think independently and will not conform to authority”
December 21st, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Shama: I was referring to the use of the word “probably” in the proposed slogan, which is the topic of this discussion.
Some atheists can be just as dogmatic as theists, it would seem.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:57 pm
@Robert I believe that’s exactly the point, “probably” is not the most correct statement we can make.
On a non marketing level you would want this to go out as accurate as possible, and just like we say there is no bogeyman and that there are no monsters under my bed, we know there is no god. There is no clear evidence of a god (or a bogeyman), so the best science and rationale thought can do is to say that it doesn’t exist. All the above has been said before but I believe you yourself said “I don’t see how “there is no evidence for any God” is ignorant or deceitful; or a philosophical statement. It’s simply a statement of fact” meaning you are in total agreeance that there is no god.
However, I also believe you have softened your standpoint on the marketing side as you believe its better to give “believers” an opening and engage them in conversation than to say a statement that they would simply push away as its to hard to deal with.
You are quite right that atheists can be as dogmatic as theists, but as atheist have clear evidence and theist don’t, the problem is not so bad.
As I have read through the list of comments here I have been impressed by users ability to take on others opinion agree or counter as they see fit. Keep it up all, its great stuff.
December 21st, 2009 at 6:26 pm
No, you are both lumping two different statements together and implying they are one and the same.
It is one thing to state “There is no evidence for a God” and quite another to state “There is no God”.
Now, nobody disputes the dearth of evidence, but the non-existence of a deity doesn’t automatically follow because it’s impossible to prove non-existence (of anything).
As Simon pointed out in his intro, that would be a faith statement. Note that the slogan isn’t about whether evidence exists, it’s about whether a deity exists.
Richard Dawkins also maintains this view, hence his preference for “almost certainly”.
December 21st, 2009 at 6:32 pm
@Robert
Very good!
That was very succinct! I think I would have taken five times as long to say the same thing.
December 21st, 2009 at 6:56 pm
@Robert I fail to see your point.
Think numerous writers on this blog have agreed that ‘probably’ is not a technically accurate statement, yet does fulfill the objectives of this campaign, including simon.
You seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I don’t understand why this is called the NZ Atheist Campaign, the whole thing strikes me as Agnosticism.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
@Hex
This question has been thoroughly debated in this post and all the comments. I think you’ll find some solid reasoning in there.
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:53 pm
@Hex:
An aside:
It really gets my goat when someone tries to tell me what my own self-identified labels should mean, and that because of that I don’t qualify and should stop using that label. Not sure of your motivation exactly, so I’m not gonna get all bent out of shape over it… It’s just a pet peeve of mine.
Briefly:
I think you’re mistaken. Atheist fits us perfectly by any reasonable definition of the word.
1) If I consider that there is probably no God, and;
2) Because of this I have provisionally rejected the premise that God exists, then;
3) As I lack the belief in God, I am an atheist.
Verbosely:
Depending on what you mean by ‘agnostic’ and ‘atheist’, the terms aren’t necessarily exclusive.
The common understanding seems to be that atheists are certain there is no God, agnostics don’t know, and theists are certain there is a God.
I’ve always found that distinction to be unfairly simplistic – the reality of people’s actual beliefs are far more complex than that. If we’re to represent them fairly, we need to be more nuanced in our approach.
It seems fair to me to state that Theism is (in part) the belief that God exists (Theos).
Atheism is the absence of that belief.
Gnosticism refers to knowledge (Gnosis).
Likewise, agnosticism is the absence of knowledge.
So we can have:
1) A gnostic theist – believes in God, and claims to *know* God exists.
2) An agnostic theist – believes in God, but considers their belief a matter of faith in the face of the unknowable.
3) An agnostic atheist – doesn’t believe in God, but accepts that we can’t really know for sure.
4) A gnostic atheist – someone who doesn’t believe in God, and claims knowledge to that effect.
2) and 3) strike me as the ‘normal’ case for theists and atheists.
This framework for the theist/atheist and gnostic/agnostic spectra is a much fairer representation of the nuanced range of beliefs that people hold and express. It’s not perfect, I’ll grant you – but it’s much better than the overly simplistic ‘yes/maybe/no’ split that most people seem to consider to be analogous with the terms ‘theist/agnostic/atheist’.
It’s important to represent people fairly and on their own terms, and to not box them up in convenient labels of our own choosing.
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:00 pm
@Simon and Sharma:
Sorry to harp on about a subject that’s already been well-covered. I just think that repetition is an important part of keeping an idea alive, and patience in communication is an important part of dealing with people who may not understand us very well.
Yes, we wind up repeating ourselves. A lot. But just because we may have gone over a subject hundreds of times, that doesn’t mean everyone else has.
Greta Christina explains the problem well over at Atheism and Patience.
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I left out the link!
Agnosticism and Atheism explained.
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
@Cyberguy-
your response was just plain rude
@simon-
I have to confess I’m no where near as smart as E.P.F. Schumacher!
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
@Daniel I have only one thing to say, you spelt my name wrong
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Gentle men and good ladies
Let’s not turn this into an esoteric and circular argument about what things mean. We ALL believe there’s no god, but you can’t prove that something doesn’t exist.
And we all know Daniel’s been practicing his HTML.
Now can we PLEASE move on to the purpose of the campaign? I’m trying to remember what it was.
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 pm
@Shama:
Oops. ‘Shama’ sounds like ‘Sharma’ in my inner monologue.
@Thereare:
Ha! Was I showing off my l33t HTML skillz? ^_^
I didn’t actually realize I was using it. I work with HTML for a living – it just slips in.
As for the topic we should be getting back to: I thought that this thread was dedicated to the use of the word ‘probably’ in the campaign, rather than the campaign itself.
Doesn’t that mean that all our sublime pontifications about the using the term ‘probably’ in the statement ‘There is probably no God’ surprisingly on-topic?
(he asked, quite contentiously)
To be clear: The above is all tongue-in-cheek. I’m happy to drop the topic.
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:32 pm
@Daniel
The thread should really have been a statement of explanation with no room to debate. I realise that would have immediately spawned two websites:
1) http://www.imdefinitelyanatheist.org.nz, and
2) http://www.therighttodebateslogans.org.nz
And sadly I also realise that we can never close this thread – everybody wants to have the last word.
(Slowly shakes head; heartfelt sigh)
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:43 am
In all seriousness: If it’s getting a bit tedious to moderate all this, you can always turn off comments for this post.
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:38 am
@Daniel hehe yeah that is probably a good idea
I’ll do that…