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 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Well said. i don’t know why people are so hung up on one word. The idea is to get people to think.
December 16th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
It’s funny how a lot of religious types fixate on that word as if it somehow a sign of weakness in Atheistic [rational] arguments.
Of course, it’s the entire point!
December 16th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
The word “probably” is the key word in the slogan that opens up discussion.
Leaving “probably” out would tend to close intelligent discussion down by making the message appear excessively dogmatic and confrontational.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
I completely understand the rationale behind it, but at face value, most uninformed people interpret it as an agnostic stance. Perhaps a better slogan might be “There’s absolutely no evidence for any god…” etc.
I’m also not too keen on the “you can be good without god” line – “being good” isn’t necessarily what motivates people to become religious.
Anyhow, other common criticisms in the media are “Wouldn’t all that money be better donated to a charity?” and “This is just proselytising, so atheism is really no different than any other cult”.
December 16th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Just wanted to highlight a couple of things.
1. It should be noted that the ‘There’s probably no god’ campaign was a direct response to a Christain Ad that ran on buses in the UK. Therefore, the choice of words in the slogan made more sense in that given scenario. I think taking it out of that context makes the slogan weaker and doesn’t quite get the intended message across. ( http://www.humanism.org.uk/bus-campaign )
2. Also, initially, the slogan did not have the word ‘probably’. It was only added because the UK Committee of Advertising Practice advised so.
The whole point of this initiative is to get people to think critically about religion. And I don’t think ‘probably is no god’ slogan quite achieves that in this case.
Think this one’s excellent “I prefer to reason rather than believe. That’s why I’m an atheist!”. It was done in Italy. More info here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4588
Just thought I’d make some suggestions which I think would benefit this initiative as I support it and am also a donor.
December 16th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
I think ‘almost certainly’ would be better than probably.
However the idea is correct and it seems to be effective in other countries. Plus probably fits better on the banner.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
I like Dawkins response at the launch of the UK campaign: He would have preferred that the ‘probably’ were omitted, but it would lose scientific integrity to do so.
As for giving money to charity and proselytising: people donated the money for bus adverts – it was up to those individual people what they do with their money and they chose bus adverts; and it would be proselytising if we were to go door to door or stand on the street handing out fliers about how silly they all are – not just saying “stop worrying.”
December 16th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
@Shama The probably has in fact encouraged discussion because it is a contentious point. Sure, “almost certainly” is more accurate, but that doesn’t work so well as a slogan on the side of a bus – it is not catchy enough.
There will always be arguments against, and problems with, any slogan. It is after all, just that, a slogan. The meaning and intent behind the slogan is always more important.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
If the slogan is meant to mean “there is no evidence for any God” then this is either ignorance or deceit. It is also a philosophical statement, and if it is to be held as rational needs justification. That burden is a great one, as there are a great many arguments (which could as good evidence) for Theism.
December 16th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
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.
And I don’t think “arguments” qualify as evidence either, although I guess it depends on your definition of the word.
I’m now coming around to liking the “probably” wording. There’s merit in having a consistent slogan in many countries. Politicians know this only too well.
December 17th, 2009 at 6:51 am
@Stuart There is comprehensive evidence AGAINST the existence of any supernatural deity, exactly the same as there is comprehensive evidence against the existence of fairies. One can come to this rational conclusion by science, reason and logic.
That’s why it requires blind faith to believe in a supernatural being as all reason tells you it doesn’t make sense. Such as, a virgin giving birth
December 17th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Like so:
http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/232/religionkv0.png
December 17th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
@Hamish Brilliant! Love it!
December 17th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
@Stuart
“If the slogan is meant to mean “there is no evidence for any God” then this is either ignorance or deceit.”
I am glad you are going to tell us what that evidence is. I await your response, but I am not holding my breath.
“…there are a great many arguments (which could as good evidence) for Theism.”
Go on – put ‘em up. Let’s see what you’ve got.
December 17th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Hi Great article,
I wanted to know if anyone has seen the movie the ‘Zeitgeist’? I think this is one of the most factual presentataions on religion and institution of religion itself.
This is the movie that made me question my beliefs, and start to critically analyse why people believe things that are obviously not true.
I recomend this movie to anyone and may be worth posting on the site. you can watch it online if you google ‘Zeitgeist’
December 17th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
You can’t prove joy, anger or sadness exist either, but we know they do…
The scientific attitude doesn’t apply to 2/3rds of human life. There’s a really good book about this-
A Guide for the Perplexed by E.P.F. Schumacher
December 17th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Nah, Zeitgeist is all shite, Better to research the deities yourself. There were similarities with the deities but no where near to the extent that the Zeitgeist movie portrays, which portrays blatant lies.
December 17th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
@Chris
Zeitgeist has a segment which is based on the ‘Jesus Myth Hypothesis’. So while I enjoyed the movie myself, you can’t call it a “factual presentation” in any sense.
It also presents the way in which the US is run by the bankers. And how 9/11 didn’t happen the way the consensus view holds it happened.
So again, it’s an interesting movie presented as a documentary, but it reeks of conspiracy and paranoia and the sequel ‘Zeitgeist 2′ reeks even more so.
December 17th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
@Jordan Grantham
We know joy, anger and sadness exist do we? Like to clarify that a bit?
December 17th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
@Jordan Grantham
“You can’t prove joy, anger or sadness exist either, but we know they do…”
LOL. That has to be the most brain-dead argument for the existence of gods I have ever heard.
It is completely wrong on multiple levels.
You fail.
December 17th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
So, Simon, you must be a bit miffed that St Matthews has stolen the headlines with their dubious “dissatisfied Mary” billboard.
December 17th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
@Hamish hehe nah, they’re doing just fine revealing the issues with religion by themselves
December 17th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
What upsets me is the way in which the uneductaed dismiss something they have not taken the time to learn about, or, have been previously mislead about. Its more sane to say god possibly exists than he doesnt, take a look at the deep blue sky and the wonderfull birds that fly around, do you suppose it all just happened to be conicidentally?
December 17th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
i think the aproach that zeitgeist took was brilliant,taking all the paranormal info and turning it around the way it did was the best ive seen or heard yet,
hitchhikers guid to the galaxy did it with god,and he disappeared in a puff of logic,
im with this movement god has been an imaginary friend and foe far to long,
December 18th, 2009 at 5:42 am
re: ‘probably’ – suggest you more correctly change your name to the NZ Agnostic Bus Campaign and rather than chide others with your sanctimonious envy perhaps you might live and enjoy your own life.
December 18th, 2009 at 7:37 am
@Cameron James
re your comment
” Its more sane to say god possibly exists than he doesnt”
No its not!!!,
Thats saying the theory of ‘ta da’ is perfectly acceptable yet science isn’t.
As part of your claim for sanity, do we count the talking serpent as well in the garden of Eden? I wish my pets could talk!!!’
December 18th, 2009 at 9:13 am
@Cameron James
“What upsets me is the way in which the uneductaed dismiss something…”
I think the way you spell uneducated tells us everything we need to know about your argument.
Fail
December 18th, 2009 at 9:16 am
More crimes perpetuated in His name:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10616286
“An 80-year-old Taranaki man who assaulted a child with a plastic alkathene pipe said he believed he was following the Bible.”
Great forgiveness and tolerance Christians. Way to go.
December 18th, 2009 at 9:28 am
And what about the moron who thought it was ok to break the law and deface this Church’s controversial billboard : http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10616253
The problem in all societies today is that religious people think they have the right to commit crimes if anyone offends their beliefs. And they commit horrible acts because of this, such as the Danish newspaper saga.
To me, defacing that billboard falls in that same category.
We have a sacred humanist right to freedom of speech. And this should always be respected and protected.
December 18th, 2009 at 10:34 am
I think it’s kinda funny given the arguement of why you have used the word probably when the campaign is labelled “atheist”
there is no probably in atheism.
i think you might want to rethink the name to be “NZAgnosticCampaign” if those truely are your beliefs.
dictionary.com offers these definitions:
a⋅the⋅ism
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
ag·nos·ti·cism
n.
1.The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2.The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
i don’t know about you but based on this post you sound rather more like an agnostic than an theist.
in fact, i think atheists may be a little offended.
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.
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…