Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

World|Tue, Jan. 06 2009 09:17 AM EST

Atheist Ads Hit London Buses

By Maria Mackay|Christian Today Reporter

As atheist ads hit London’s buses on Tuesday, one faith-based think tank says they will only get people thinking more about God.

  • Richard Dawkins
    (Photo: AP Images / Akira Suemori)
    Professor Richard Dawkins, the author of non-fiction book 'The God Delusion', poses for photographers in front of a London bus featuring the atheist advertisement with the slogan 'There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life' in London, Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2009. The campaign supported by professor Dawkins and the British Humanist Association is a response to evangelical Christian advertisements running on buses in June 2008. For the campaign 800 buses featuring the slogan are running across the country and 1000 advertisements are posted on the London underground railway system.

The ads by the British Humanist Association carry the slogan “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” They are to appear on 30 of London’s bendy buses.

The posters are the atheist response to a number of high profile Christian advertising campaigns on London buses and billboards, notably ones run by the Alpha Course, whose posters ask, "Is this it?" and "If God did exist, what would you ask him?"

The atheist ads have been publicly endorsed and partially financed by prominent atheist Professor Richard Dawkins, who told the BBC that the ad campaign was designed to make people think, an action he said was “anathema to religion.”

The public theology think tank Theos has welcomed the campaign, saying it will encourage more people to think about the existence of God.

"We think that the campaign is a great way to get people thinking about God. The posters will encourage people to consider the most important question we will ever face in our lives,” said Theos Director Paul Woolley.

"The slogan itself is a great discussion starter. Telling someone 'there's probably no God' is a bit like telling them that they've probably remembered to lock their front door. It creates the doubt that they might not have done so.”

Woolley said that a new Theos research study, due to be published next month, had revealed that there were as many people finding God in Britain today as there were people losing their faith.

“So this campaign is speaking into a very live debate,” he said.

Mike Elms, a fellow of The Marketing Society and former chief executive of ad agencies Ogilvy & Mather and Tempus/CIA, said that the campaign could play a role in the revival of Christianity.

"For too long, the British public has been able to dodge the 'God choice' - is there or isn't there? - by scribbling ‘C of E’ on their hospital admission form,” he said.

“But now atheists are challenging us to make that choice one way or another. The atheist campaign opens the door toward a very public debate on the existence and nature of God."

The head of Church Army, Mark Russell, has also previously expressed his support for the ads in his blog, "Mark Russell’s reflections."

"I love that the advert says 'probably,'" he wrote, "so it seems the atheists are not sure if there is a God or not!! I hope people will take time out from the busyness of their everyday lives and think openly about the issues."

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3
  • Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    READY : Saturday, January 17, 2009 10:01 AM
    Subject: SO YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN ME THEN ???

    "Thus Saith The Lord GOD, Creator Of Heaven and earth and The Father Of JESUS CHRIST, My Son, The Lord. My Holy Book, The Perfect Holy Bible, is Written for you TODAY, yet ye deny that I even exist, Saith The Holy Spirit. Therefore, Saith The LORD, even JEHOVAH By My Son, Saith God; therefore, I could not possibly be able to blow out the power to your locations and then bankrupt your corrupt organisation Saith The Angel of destruction Of The LORD, sent upon you. I could not possibly be able to Reveal this New Fact in Advance to you as I simply don't exist, Saith God. I could not become your enemy and torment and vex your every plan Saith The LORD God of Heaven and earth, because I don't exist, Saith The Father, Author of The Most Holy Bible.

    Therefore, Behold, I AM and all herein is NOW Ordained, that when Complete ye may verily Believe that I AM and Repent, Believe The Gospel and be Baptized, for surely Hell awaits ALL who wilfully deny and refuse The Salvation By My Son, even JESUS CHRIST The Lord. Yea Saith The Lord JESUS CHRIST, verily indeed. So Saith The Father, With The Son, By The Immaculate Holy Ghost. Thus Saith The Eternal Amen." Selah and Alleluia

    Here is the Confirmed END of this corrupt and evil institution, for all the wickedness it has spawned since 1896. This is NOW unstoppable, even the Supernatural Tenfold Decimation of your beast.

    For the individuals, so sold out to Satan, take shelter in The Ark Of The Church and do it FAST : The Whirlwind of the Living God is Coming upon you and when Complete, be thankful your lives have been spared by the Mercy Of Christ, and THEN Repent and Believe and be Baptized; yet, SOONER rather than LATER.

    In The Immaculate Name Of The Lord JESUS CHRIST Himself, Alive in Heaven NOW - Amen

    Exodus 23: 20 - 22
    Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

    "I AM JEHOVAH AND JESUS COMBINED,
    Even God Himself that Speaketh
    unto thee ALL Today, Saith The Lord."

    THE WORD OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST -
    The TRUE Holy Gospel Of Mark : 16 : 15-16

    "And he said unto them,
    Go ye into all the world,
    and preach the gospel to every creature.
    He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
    but he that believeth not shall be damned."

    PLEASE WARN EVERYONE IN THE HUMANIST
    ORGANISATION ABOUT THIS PROPHECY - From HENCEFORTH NOW : THIS PROPHECY CANNOT BE BROKEN

    In The Immaculate Name Of The Lord JESUS CHRIST Himself, Alive in Heaven NOW - Amen

  • Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:28 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    truthseeker,
    Again you prove my point meticulously. Quoting the bible, especially all the parts that tell me to "fear" and if I don't fear I'm going to hell. This is what turns most non-religious people away from religion. Why should we fear god if he forgives us if we just ask for forgiveness? If he loves all of us, why fear him? The bible is the perfect example of an attempt at brainwashing. You just read to the uneducated masses a book that threatens them with an eternity spent in hell if they don't give their life over to your "god". You fill the book with stories, yes stories, of people who went against god and were stricken down to drive your point home. As for your engine comparison, nice try. I didn't ask you to describe god, I asked you to prove one exists. I can prove there is such a thing as an engine by walking out to my garage and lifting the hood. As for your god, no one has ever, or will ever have any tangible proof that he exists. But in the meantime, go ahead and try to scare the pants off of anyone not smart enough to think for themselves by threatening them with eternity in hell. Here's one of my favorite quotes that sums up what an ever increasing number of Americans think about religion. The rest can be found at this site: http://www.rense.com/general69/obj.htm "Religion easily has the greatest b...s..t story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good b...s..t story." Enough said.

  • Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    To uivandal,
    I wanted to give a final comment to your last posting, since I have more important things to do than to get into a theological argument with you. Each individual's salvation ultimately depends on his/her ability for critical and logical thinking, and being able to weigh the pros and cons of any belief system and how it ultimately affects them. As to your instruction to 'prove' God apart from mentioning scripture is as silly and illogical as to ask someone to describe how an automobile's engine works, and not be able to mention: valves, pistons, and camshafts. As to the 'proving' part, you seem to have conveniently ignored how I mentioned to you that God revealed himself to my mind by His Spirit. As to the Bible having been written just by men, you need to read a book called 'Theomatics' by Del Washburn, and to also realize that God's warning to all those who mock and hate His Word is clear: "Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed; but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded." (Proverbs 13:13). As for your comment of my story being a 'fairy tale' it's expected, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness" (I Corinthians 1:18). Now as far as your comment of you not fearing Hell doesn't surprise me in the least bit, for "The fear of the LORD is the BEGINNING of knowledge; but fools despise wisdom and instruction." (Proverbs 1:7). And last but certainly not least, to your comment of leading an "honorable life", all I can say to that is: "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes; but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise." (Proverbs 12:15), and even more harshly: "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Proverbs 14:12). Enough said.

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    truthseeker777,

    Thanks for proving my point. I have yet to have anyone prove the existance of god without trying to throw a bible verse in there. Guess what, god didn't write the bible, a bunch of men did. All I want is even the smallest bit of proof. Not a story, not a fairy tale about some "supernatural code". Just show me one person who has physically seen god, or heard actual audible words from god that anyone standing nearby could have heard. When you get some physical proof, let me know. Until then, you go on believing whatever will help you sleep better at night, and I'll keep living an honorable life (not because I'm scared of going to hell, but because it is the right thing to do).

  • Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:59 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    To uivandal:
    Im responding to your post because I don't want you to think that we 'Christians' are afraid to prove our position. You claim that you want proof, well guess what, so did I. I began my desperate search for the Truth through science, more specifically 'physics'. I studied Einstein's general theory of Relativity and the Quantum theory with a passion, and understood both these subjects. In a turn of events in my life I came to realize science wasn't going to save my soul. This is when of my own free will I decided to finally dig into the Holy scriptures for myself, as I wasn't going to trust or take the word of any man as to what the Bible itself teaches. After 3.5 years of desperately seeking God and his truth through his Word, on March 25,1995 I received the powerful baptism of the Holy Spirit which opened both my eyes and understanding. You see the 'Bible' is written in dimensions, and it's supernatural 'code' is only revealed to those who desperately search for it. Now I have merged the scientific with the scriptures proving beyond any doubt, they are one and the same. I challenge you to read my book. Jesus himself stated: "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32)

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:20 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    It's amazing that since my last post, 2 people gave it the thumbs down, but no one attempted to prove me wrong. Typical response when I ask "christians" to prove there is a god. Lots of stone throwing, but no proof!!!

  • Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    Here's a challenge to all you beleivers. Prove that there is a god without quoting the bible. If you can prove to me that there is actually an all-seeing, all powerful god, I will go to church every Sunday from now till the day I die. I want actual proof, not "I prayed and my prayer was answered", or "it's a matter of faith", or "according to this verse in the bible..." etc. I want actual physical proof!!! Any takers? I doubt it, I'll probably just get a bunch of negative responses telling me how uneducated I am. Look forward to being proven wrong.

  • Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I find it very sad that man tries so hard to deny God's obvious existence in order to justify his own sinful lifestyle. That in itself is bad alone, but the fact that they zealously try to propagate their humanistic world view to indoctrinate others is outrageous. Im glad that im putting an end to all this scientific debate about God's existence once and for all with my new book. The scientific community will literally follow the Bible and it's message with more zeal and understanding than the religious one; and come to know and understand JESUS!
    http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail~bookid~52525.aspx

  • Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:06 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Evidently Mr/Ms. Free, you missed the entire nature of the add, which was based on critically analyzing the premise of god existence & not merely presuming it to exist regardless.

  • Free »
    Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    How about an ad that says, "There is Only God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

  • Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorangex, sorry for the delay in responding.

    thanks for the last response in which you acknowledge the possibility of supernatural. You indicate quite rightly that the logical possibility, plausibility, or even nescessity of a supernatural does not in itslef nessecitate "God" unless of course one plays semantics and says whatever that supernatural is we will simply call that god. That being said as you must know I beleive that it can be shown both logically and empiracally that the supernatural must exist. I also believe that it the nature of this can be somewhat explored by applying rational inferences and extensions to the evidence for its existence. would love to discuss more but must go now hope to continue in future and on additonal posts. Matrix despite being a movie is a good thought experiment for the old vat in a brain hypothesis which is helpful in eliminating false leads in this matter.

  • Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Some might like to read this interview with Richard Dawkins concerning the bus, it was featured in the LA Times (go on, you know you want to, you little tykes...)

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-dawkins-qa12-2009jan12,0,3974830.story?page=1

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking,

    "Do you agree with this?"

    Sure, it's logically sound. Though, for a given proposition, before it's determined which one is true, or best supported based on evidence which is true, any possibilities for the proposition would have to be included as possible. I understand the inverse of A principle.

    Felix could be anything, but to determine its nature requires using evidence to define first what felix is not (falsification), then after removing the outliers we can reasonably begin to know what Felix truly is. Mostly we can know what felix isn't in relation to its nature, & based on this evidence we can assign a probabiliy of its nature.

    By providing in the beginning only 2 options of existence, & then premising it forward it's basically begging the question. I am not saying the supernatural isn't possible, but the nature of a hypothetical supernatural could equally be 'The Matrix' s opposed to 'God'. The supernatural is something for which no limits of the mind can bound, so any number of possible supernatural realms are possible.

    I'll respond later, duties call.

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking,

    "Here is an example of why that research can not ultimately demonstrate what you are proposing."

    I stated earlier that I think we have free will, at least to a limited extent anyway. Either way, neuroscience is young, it's tentative for such a heavy question, but has some answers for limited questions. It's fair to say that this study while demonstrative of the will of a conscious being, it would also imply that a person who's brain is unresponsive to outside stimuli due to injury wouldn't be able to comprehend let alone will themselves to voluntary or involuntary control of their limbs. All it shows is the mind/matter are one.

    They would in affect be more like a person who's had a stroke & their have difficulty controlling themselves. They might not even recognize them self in the mirror. Ever watched Momento? It's based on examples of people who suffer from a brain injury disorder.

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agentorangex,
    As an aside in regards to "as I showed the matter/mind correlation studies show the natural world to be explicitly linked, one can't be conscious outside of material mind."
    This has been accepted a fact of the arguments for several hundred years. Descartes presumed this to be the case without any neuroscience. Since it is already and accepted fact its confirmation through neuroscience doesn't impact the question.

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking,

    "you mean ordered not rational."

    Ordered = rational, no? =) I am not stating it's a giant mind in itself, please don't confuse. Rather, I am trying to say that it works in orderly, systematic, (one might say predetermined) manner.

    After all, you're saying philosophical naturalists refer to the material world as behaving in a non rational (non conscious, forward thinking) way. But what I am saying is that in science (in tradition w/ being naturalistic in its philosophy), its method presumes that nature is orderly/rational in that it & all things in it can be discerned via analysis via studying the principle of cause & effect. This assumes, at least at the micro -level of determinism. But, this determinism is viewed in an after the fact retrospect fashion, one in which Biologists like Gould, Miller & others often refer to the 'rewinding the tape of the Universe' & playing it again & the results would invariably be different as there exists very high levels of variability within & based on contingency of previous outcomes extracting full on determinism from big bang to now is illusory.

    There is no teleology in inferred in science, as it attempts to study the material relationships, not presumed intention where one may not/doesn't exist. This is where philosophical naturalism & supernaturalism really differ, in their differing pursuits of reality & how it's to be understood. I don't think I need to mention which we use, nor which is best applicable both in reductionism & demonstrative fruits of its efforts. We wouldn't be talking in this manner otherwise.

    These fruits, if nothing else, demonstrate which method of introspection gets results, so clearly the naturalistic view, regardless if's it's the end all be all best method of all possible methods is not to be ignored when attempting to discover reality. Why, so easily, give up on a method of analysis which fruits are so apparent in retrospect & in contrary to the alternative? Now that would be irrational.

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agentorangex those last few posts I tried to include a long cut an paste on the free will issue didn't work well. Okay lets go back to the issue you identify as a hurdle before further progress.
    You've still failed to show how rationality (disillusioned or not, regardless of our limited understanding of it) couldn't derive from non rational material forces. Until this hurdle is cleared, there is no point in going forward with a priori for which can't be supported. Otherwise, you're in a position of decrying 'red is red b/c it's red!' without a comprehensive relation to other colors.
    Okay first I don't understand your reference to the color issue at all. Setting that aside lets go back to the issue of rationality. Lets try it this way.

    If A is the exact contradiction of B, and we show that A is incorrect then by the rules of logic B is correct.
    For example if we have two statements
    A:Felix is a cat
    and
    B:Felix is not a cat
    and we show that it is not correct that Felix is a Cat then we know that Felix is not a Cat.
    Do you agree with this?

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking,

    "why do we consider any proposition plausible. The rule generally are two fold one is it logically consistent (rational) and two is it consistent with our experience (empirical). Well we have already shown that the naturalist proposition is not rational"

    All you've shown is that the mind itself *might* not behave rationally, not that it is. The corelation I attemped earlier indicates that the cause & effect within the matter of the brain & its enviroment determine to a great deal how it behaves in turn. It's
    the matter, neurons, etc. are not a free wheeling objects on its own agenda, its actions fall in accordance with outside stimuli for which it has limited control over (hormones). IE, The brains actions don't exist in a vacum, they exist as an effect (from cause) of outside stimuli, from the natural world. In this sense saying one has complete free will/choice in all instances is wrong, they would have limited ones at best.

    You've still failed to show how rationality (disillusioned or not, regardless of our limited understanding of it) couldn't derive from non rational material forces. Until this hurdle is cleared, there is no point in going forward with a priori for which can't be supported. Otherwise, you're in a position of decrying 'red is red b/c it's red!' without a comprehensive relation to other colors.

    It only appears to be logically inconsistent if one considers that matter in motion can't culminate in rationality in the first place. You're basically saying rationality can't exist outside of supernaturalism for naturalism can't account for the processes of the mind, but as I showed the matter/mind correlation studies show the natural world to be explicitly linked, one can't be conscious outside of material mind.

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    falsify this prediction by failing to
    raise your arm? But if you can falsify any prediction
    about your arm, and if the prediction is derived perfectly
    from a comprehensive knowledge of your
    body’s constituent micro-particles, then your mind
    must be free. In a crucial sense, then, the denial of
    free will is predicated on our ignorance of the very
    causal laws that supposedly show that free will is impossible.
    For once these allegedly binding laws of nature
    were compiled and capable of making falsifiable
    empirical predictions, it would be child’s play to falsify
    them forthwith. Surely if human behavior were unfree,
    then science could in theory at least predict when
    I am going to raise my hand. And why should the
    equations be unable to compensate for the subject’s
    knowledge of the prediction? And yet, it is very hard
    to believe that upon the proclamation of these alleged
    causal laws, that I would find it any harder to falsify
    them than I would find it to falsify e.g. the reader’s
    prediction about when I will raise my hand.
    Nor would it help if these scientific laws were probabilistic
    rather than deterministic. It is child’s play to
    falsify the prediction that I will raise my right hand
    now with certainty. Is it any harder to falsify the
    claim that I will now raise my right hand with probability
    .3? Simply by deciding not to raise it, couldn’t
    I instantly make the probability equal to zero?

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agentorangex,
    Here is an example of why that research can not ultimately demonstrate what you are proposing. This is an excerpt from a discussion of the arguments regarding free will by a gentleman named Bryan Caplin.

    D. A Thought Experiment Showing the Freedom
    of the Will
    Fourth, try the following thought experiment. Our
    brilliant neurophysiologists come up with an equation
    that they claim will predict all of our behavior. The
    equation is so good that it even incorporates our reaction
    to the equation, our reaction to knowing that it
    incorporates our reaction, and so on indefinitely. Suppose
    that the equation says that the next thing that you
    will do is raise your arm. Do you seriously believe
    that you couldn’t falsify this prediction by failing to
    raise your arm? But if you can falsify any prediction
    about your arm, and if the prediction is derived perfectly
    from a comprehensive knowledge of your
    body’s constituent micro-particles, then your mind
    must be free. In a crucial sense, then, the denial of
    free will is predicated on our ignorance of the very
    causal laws that supposedly show that free will is impossible.
    For once these allegedly binding laws of nature
    were compiled and capable of making falsifiable
    empirical predictions, it would be child’s play to falsify
    them forthwith. Surely if human behavior were unfree,
    then science could in theory at least predict when
    I am going to raise my hand. And why should the
    equations be unable to compensate for the subject’s
    knowledge of the prediction? And yet, it is very hard
    to believe that upon the proclamation of these alleged
    causal laws, that I would find it any harder to falsify
    them than I would find it to falsify e.g. the reader’s
    prediction about when I will raise my hand.
    Nor would it help if these scientific laws were probabilistic
    rather than deterministic. It is child’s play to
    falsify the prediction that I will raise my right hand
    now with certainty. Is it any harder to falsify the
    claim that I will now raise my right hand with probability
    .3? Simply by deciding not to raise it, couldn’t
    I instantly make the probability equal to zero?

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agentorangex, Hi again you state that
    with respect to the neuroscience studies, Science as a mode of methodological analysis asserts that Nature is rational (symmetry in physics would be an example)

    I think you mean ordered not rational. I think if you check no naturalist scientist would say that nature is rational. In fact just the opposite. If you are saying that rationality is an innate feature of the universe then you would be moving from naturalism into a belief system where the entire universe itself is somehow a giant mind. I don't think that you could provide empirical support for that proposition.

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi steve20 thanks for the link,

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking, with respect to the neuroscience studies, Science as a mode of methodological analysis asserts that Nature is rational (symmetry in physics would be an example), & therefore possible of questioning & reasoning based on evidence.

    I would also like to add for clarification that the results from the studies indicate a correlation between mind/matter & cause & effect for which your most recent description on how biological, environmental causes results in the X in the equation. Under this view, it makes the notion of choice look illusive if not ultimately quasi true at best.

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agentorangex,
    we have touched on empiricism before and I (as it seems you do place great stock) in empirical evidence. So lets see if we can find some empirical evidence for the supernatural after all. First we must see if we agree on what empirical evidence is.
    Let's start with Wiki's definition as a starting point (they don't seem to have a religious bias)
    The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment[1], as opposed to theoretical.
    Would you agree with this definition?

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorangex,
    Hi again. You state in part,
    "Perhaps rationality itself is an illusion" and
    "Naturalism itself all beliefs including naturalism itself (along with belief in the scientific method etc.) are "ultimately non-rational"

    Unfortunately, this seems to be the case
    Of course this is the case for naturalists and is one of the reasons that metaphysical naturalism rather than methodological naturalism is a self defeating argument.
    You go on to state,
    but this notion of irrationality would equally apply to all other beliefs, even the supernatural. So it's sorta moot I think.
    This of course is not the case. )
    Lets assume for a moment the opposite a priori proposition from naturalism. This being that the natural universe is not the sum total of all reality and that there is in fact something beyond the natural universe. Why would we consider this proposition plausible. Well why do we consider any proposition plausible. The rule generally are two fold one is it logically consistent (rational) and two is it consistent with our experience (empirical). Well we have already shown that the naturalist proposition is not rational meaning that it is not logicaly consistent. Not let us show that it is not consistent with our experience (empirical either). Once we demonstrate that we have a strong reason for believing that the contradiction supernature is true just as a matter of logic.
    But beyond that we can also demonstrate that contrary to the claims of naturalists a supernatural belief system is both rational (logicaly consistent) and empirical (consistent with our experience). Also you will see that even naturalists despite what they say they believe actually act in daily life and even their arguments as if their arguments are wrong and supernaturalism is correct.

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You know,my dear old mum always said ,its always best to get it straight from the horses mouth(I would add God bless her soul, but she's not dead). So read Ariane Sherine's(the lady behind the advert)own words...

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5488849.ece

    The Australian slogan made me laugh.

    BW

    Steve

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking,

    "Your certainty of the sun rising is a simple consequence of consistent experience not of rational reasoning."

    This doesn't sound right. Wouldn't the notion of 'rational reasoning' be explicitly linked to consistent experience? After all, if one isn't referring to experience for their rationale for a proposition, it wouldn't be logical, but a decry from authority.

    "You did not reason out from propositions logically"

    He gave an alternative, the supernova being highly unlikely given our experience, & so one can logically conclude the sun will rise w/ the nearest possibility to 100%, that it might as well be certain.

    As for rationality, I will be tentative, we might be unable to grasp the overall abstract cumulative effects from a group of neurons firing to indicating a predetermined actions by individuals, at least as of now. But studies have shown a strong correlation between certain mental illnesses & brain/matter disability, along with analysis' of the brain demonstrating which parts of the brain reacts in accordance w/ certain emotions, modes of thought, & especially while under different levels of stress. This fits with the naturalism view of mind/matter being linked as one. It might show overall predetermination, yet, but the correlation is indisputable.

    If neuroscience is simply the last gap for god/supernatural to hide in, then I wouldn't hold your breath too long. Science has, over the centuries continually shrunk the gaps, & this doesn't appear to be any different.

    "if you accept this proposition then you are conceding that none of your own thoughts are at bottom rational or have any certainty."

    This 'non certainty' would seem to support 'free will/choice', in the abstract top level, but at the very lowest material actions in the brain/matter, these are not within our control nor a matter of intention nor choice.

    We don't actively choose when certain hormones are released via puberty, such as a male you might know of the *cough* oddity of how the male sex organ seems to have a mind of its own at times. Did you 'choose' to be straight, or do you have a genetic predisposition to finding the opposite sex attractive? This wasn't something you 'chose' either, it's genetically bound. In this sense, we're partially slaves to our genes, but we still reserve the choice to obey them or not. This is often, I think, interpreted by theists as the issue of sin, thought variations exist dependent on religion on what is & isn't sin.

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    DP,

    "I don't know. I thought my post was kind-o simple."

    I really don't think Steve was reffering to you or your post, I take it he's recalling the dialog between Viking & I in general & the past 200+ years of philosophical thought on the matter.

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking,

    No worries about it being late, the feeling is mutual.

    "For naturalism is certainly a belief, and it is certainly true that naturalism entails that all beliefs are ultimately nonrational"

    This still doesn't get at the heart of what I asked, being why non rational acting matter in motion can't equate to a rational thinking mindset. Perhaps rationality itself is an illusion. Deep.

    If our very method of belief/thinking is derived irrationally, then no matter how how rational we interpret nature to be, it might be all for not. Natural or supernatural, they all would come under this.

    In the end, this may be something for which we also can't empirically know. Though, in itself it doesn't then support the supernatural as an alternative hypothesis explanation. it just posits the mind/matter issue you aforementioned. An unsolved logic puzzle doesn't therefore become evidence for the supernatural, it's just perhaps beyond our comprehension temporarily.

    "in the sense that belief-formation analyzed to its simplest causal components is a mindless, mechanical process under naturalism."

    This almost makes it sound like the material mind is mindless, or on auto pilot, basically self refuting. What I would say is, that at the lowest common denominator anyway, it's material based in our thought processes (chemical neurons & such), but the culmination is elusive as it seems to conflict w/ the notion of determinism as one might expect by simply sing the 'matter in motion' principle. I think, high variability, of mind material processes would lead to (culminate) in complexity in such an abstract way, in which we'd call it a 'belief'. The only analogy that comes to mind is are fractals, in which small math variables culminate for an abstract comprehensive repeating image.

    We should note that our brains, if we take the evolutionary route, is one in which arose in social groups & where mere genetically bound instinctual survival traits wasn't the whole equation of our (or our immediate ancestors) actions.

    Its very inception of beginning to end in a thinking process isn't supernatural in nature, but natural. natural/material based. Neuroscience has shown this much already.

    "Naturalism itself all beliefs including naturalism itself (along with belief in the scientific method etc.) are "ultimately non-rational"

    Unfortunately, this seems to be the case, but this notion of irrationality would equally apply to all other beliefs, even the supernatural. So it's sorta moot I think.

    "well ain't that a kicker."

    Yes, I agree, it's a pickle.

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    DP,

    "In my case, I have seen"

    Here again you're referring to ones own subjective view, & not an objective one on what is & isn't improbable. From a single perspective, it may appear highly improbable, but across many numerous people the odds change. Additionally, the necessary element of coincidence can't be ignored.

    "We're talking about always being able to find a job that met my needs even when others were not able to find a job."

    And this is a miracle how? Surely there are jobs out there which offer variables that meet your needs, all one needs is numbers of attempts to find what they need. If, you're already setting up a wall of requirements, which you were, for which *only these jobs will works* then you've already laid out the ground work of narrowing down applicable jobs & from then on can begin to network on acquiring them. No doubt some legwork was involved on your part, but go ahead, ignore this too as part of the equation.

    My parents were booked on a flight in the Philippines but were able to get an earlier flight to have a few weeks they wanted in Manila before leaving the islands. The plane they were booked on was taken over by terrorists and destroyed."

    Where's the miracle part come in? was it prayed for? If not (b/c it seems not here), then why would such favorable things occur regardless? Coincidence ring a bell?

    "I got custody of my kids in SC in the 90's!"

    Miracle enters where here? again, you were involved in authoring things in this story, it wasn't something which 'fell in your' lap for lack of better words.

    "The list of how God protected me from the sins of my Their just happened to be unscheduled road work on the interstate at the exact time she was heading to court and it made her 2 hours late.

    Hate to break it to you, but 'road work' happens all the time, & is often a reason for travel delay. You take it as providence, but it's mere coincidence of circumstances. She could've, had she really cared, ensured to be on time by checking the routes to court.

    "if I had that same kind of "luck" I could go to Vegas and have all the money anyone could want!"

    But oddly you wont do that.

    "My entire life experience is not probable." Silly, everyone's entire moment by moment of their life is highly improbable. For instance, what are the odds I'd be hear now, right now, typing on this speaking with you giving my entire life's history? Very small, highly improbable. The notion is derived by our choices themselves which are highly variable.

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking,

    "you will find the problem of "color" (not race issues) very illuminating if complex"

    I don't follow, elaborate & exlplain please.

  • Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:55 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Klutu, hi thanks for your response.
    Yes of course I am suggesting that if Naturalism is incorrect then supernaturalism is correct. All naturalists (philisophical not ecological or nudist) hold by definition that nothing exists beyond the natural universe. Supernaturalism is the logical contradiction of Naturalism. Under fundamental rules of logic if a proposition is shown to be incorrect then its contradiction is by definition correct. Regarding the use of the specific quote and different versions of naturalisms. Within philosophy there are logical corrolaries of propositions. What I quoted was one such for naturalism. One way of discrediting an a priori proposition is to show that its logical corolarries are false.
    In relation to selecting the correct deity. I did not in my arguments in this post suggest any particular deity choice. More to the point the bus ads in specific and naturalism in general does not argue that this or that particular religion is wrong but rather that the whole concept of supernature is incorrect. so that issue is really not relevant to the question at hand.
    In regards to the issue of whether your belief based on consistent personal experience is rational. The concept of it being rational is based on the idea that you can make a choice between propositions or conclusions based on evidence and the intentional application of logic. The problem is that naturalism by definition says that you are fundamentally not rational. A naturalist position holds that you have no choice in what you conclude (or for that matter what you post here) rather casuality is deterministic.
    I do not make this claim for them this is there claim as example a quote from the website Naturalism.org
    " From a naturalistic perspective, there are no causally privileged agents, nothing that causes without being caused in turn. Human beings act the way they do because of the various influences that shape them, whether these be biological or social, genetic or environmental. We do not have the capacity to act outside the causal connections that link us in every respect to the rest of the world. This means we do not have what many people think of as free will, being able to cause our behavior without our being fully caused in turn"
    Of course behavior includes mental behavior thus according to the naturalists (not me) none of your propositions, thoughts, beliefs are rational. But then again according to them neither are their's.
    Thanks for your clarification of your comments related to the use of the term probably and religious persons reaction to the denial of a deities existence. I think your earlier post on the ad rules is most accurate since according to my reading of the sponsors statements they were quite willing to omit probably regardless of public reaction.

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking

    You seem to be suggesting that the only two options are naturalism as defined by the quote you gave and supernaturalism. Therefore if you can show that naturalism is wrong supernaturalism must be right. However naturalism has more than one definition and not all naturalist have the same idea of what naturalism is. So showing the first option is wrong does not automatically make your second option right. Also even if supernaturalism is right, how do you decide which god to pick, there are thousand to pick from. What evidence is there for one religion being right that only applies to that one religion and cannot apply equally well for all religions.

    Re 'consistent experience' If you have consistent experience of something happening on a regular basis your entire life and have no reason to think it will stop happening then it is rational to reason that it will continue to happen. Just because I didn't come to that conclusion by working it out from first principles doesn't make my reason for being certain not rational.

    My comments on peoples reactions to denial of a god was not in any way intended as evidence for or against any god, but just as an explaination why using 'probably' makes it easier in conversation when denying an existence of a god. Its just avoids the usual response of 'how can you be so certain'. I also added that thinking I was arrogant for denying their religion while not considering themselves arrogant for denying all other religions was hypocritical. Of course this makes no comment on whether they are right or not. A person could be arrogant and hypocritical and still be completely correct.

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Steve20 thanks good night and have fun with the geology.

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Thanks viking.

    In a sense the moon "did" contribute to the early Earths internal heat source in two ways(which as noted is the basis for geological activity). The first was the moons formation, when a body the size of Mars impacted the early Earth at a shallow angle this sent material into orbit around the Earth which accreted to form the moon, this impact added to the Earths heat budget. The early moon being closer to the Earth would have resulted in the Earths internal heat increasing due to tidal heating though today this contribution is negligible. Tidal heat today is a major source of geological activity on some of the moons of the giant planets, such as Io which orbits Jupiter.

    I think you can tell where my passion lies. Its getting late in the UK and I have to be up early for work so sleep night.

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Steve20 the deeper truth I think you may be striking closer to is that faith can not be achieved through reason. However I believe that an openness to faith can be achieved through reason. I believe as did your countryman Lewis that for some people the application of reason to show the inherent self contradiction of Naturalism.

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:53 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Hi Steve20,
    Thanks for the info. As an aside doesn't the prescence of the moon somewhat permutate the geology of the earth.

    Re the argument from reason. The basic argument can be summed up as a variant on Descartes famous statement as

    I think therefore God is.
    The complexities of the argument arise as part of the debate however this is the simplified form of it.
    The coresponding proposition of naturalism is that The natural world is all there is therefore I only think I think.

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi viking, thanks for the reply, I understand where you are coming from.

    If anything I would say that whilst details can be complicated my chosen hobby (not sure it did not choose me)actually makes a certain aspect of the world very simple. All geology, plate tectonics, magma formation, deposition, what ever..is the result of one very simple thing and that is that the Earth is radiating its internal heat source, there that's it in a nutshell, that's the sole driving force for all the worlds geological features. The same with evolution by natural selection, yep detail can be complicated but at the end its a very simple idea that explains the bio diversity of this planet, take Kepler's three laws for planetary orbits, lovely and simple. Modern scientific ideas tend to simplify understanding how the natural world works(of course the devil is in the detail). It appears to me that the arguments for the existence for God have gone the other way as the world has been simplified, I can't help but feel that it has become just an argument over words, one that simply ends in stale mate.

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Klutu, hi thanks for the response. I believe you were using certain in the common every day usage rather than the philisophical issue of certainty.
    Your certainty of the sun rising is a simple consequence of consistent experience not of rational reasoning. You did not reason out from propositions logically that the sun will rise tommorow (setting aside that the phrase sun will rise is a vestigal mental artifact of pre copernican thinking). So this example has no relevance to the question at hand.
    In relation to your discussion of the comparative reactions of persons to various statements of denial of the existence of a particular deity the emotional reactions of individuals bears of course no relevance to the merits of an argument and to introduce it as evidence of the opposite is as irrational as the emotional response itself.
    Regarding Dawkins arguments. I have not read his book yet. However in my earlier post I did not as you may note attempt to critique the use of the term probably by contesting the position of naturalists such as Dawkin's. Rather I showed through the use of one of the widely accepted tenents of naturalism (quoting one eminent naturalist apologist) that the use of the term probably is inherently inconsistent with their own arguments regarding the nature of reality. Let me ask you if you accept one of the cornerstone orioisutuibs of naturalism (of which Dawkins is one) that being
    "For naturalism is certainly a belief, and it is certainly true that naturalism entails that all beliefs are ultimately nonrational, in the sense that belief-formation analyzed to its simplest causal components is a mindless, mechanical process under naturalism.
    (Critical Review of Victor Reppert's Defense of the Argument from Reason: Richard Carrier 2004)
    Please keep in mind if you accept this proposition then you are conceding that none of your own thoughts are at bottom rational or have any certainty.
    On the other hand if you reject this proposition you reject naturalism and monism and by implication accept supernaturalism and dualism.
    Dawkins and other naturalists can not with intellectual honesty have it both ways. Denying rationality as a fundamental tenent of their belief system and then claiming to have it when it is convenient.

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    There should be the word 'discussions' after 'philosophical' in my last post.

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    viking

    I used "certain of this as anyone can be of anything" as in philosophical any claim to be certain is usually met (in my experience) with 'well you cannot be absolutely 100% certain'. Well I cannot be absolutely certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, it might go supernova overnight, but I consider the chance so remote and the odds of the sun rising tomorrow so close to 100% that I might as well assume it is 100% for any decision dependant on that. So I tend to use some form of 'as certain as possible' statement to preempt that.

    Regarding certainty of non existence of a god. I can say 'I am certain that Zeus does not exist' without needing to clarify that I do not mean absolute certainty. However for modern religions saying, for example, that you are certain that Allah does not exist will be met with accusations of being arrogant and the statement of 'you cannot prove he doesn't exist', though I can no more prove that than I can prove Zeus doesn't exist and denying Zeus' existence is not arrogant. Hence use of 'probably' when denying existence of something, it avoids this hypocrisy. Lack of belief in something does not require absolute certainty, just a lack of any reason TO believe.

    Even if you are right that they have no rational argument to back up their position, that doesn't stop them from being certain that they are right does it? Whether a person is certain and whether a person is right are two separate concepts and one does not guarantee or preclude the other.

    (p.s In The God Delusion, Richard does give many arguments for his position, if you can show that not one of those arguments is rational I'd love to see that proof.)

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "more complicated until only the intellectual elite can actually understand it?"

    I don't know. I thought my post was kind-o simple. Never thought of my self as part of the "intellectual elite".

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    klutu, Hi its interesting that you indicate that Dawkins and those others involved are as "certain of this as anyone can be of anything"
    This is a remarkable statement since the belief system of naturalism holds that all beliefs (including itself and a belief that there is no God) are inherently at bottom non rational (see earlier post quoting famous naturalist thinker). Thus by the rules of the system of thought which forms the belief that there is no God they nor anyone else can have any certainty of the truth of that belief. What they are really saying is we prefer not to believe in a God and are not convinced of the existence of one despite having no rational argument for that position. Seems paradoxical but if you actually read up on naturalistic philosophy and monism you will find this is the case. Good luck.

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Regarding the use of 'probably' that was only included due to advertising restrictions. The ASA wouldn't let them run the ad without that word. Richard Dawkins and most involved are as certain as anyone can be certain of anything that there is no god. As most stories I've seen about this have made that clear I'd guess Mark Russell is aware of this. He wouldn't have deliberately ignored this fact to make a cheap and misleading gibe at atheists would he?

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hi Steve20,
    I think that the increasing complexity of the argument from reason is very similar to the increase in the complexity of the other theories of how the universe works (evolution for example) Initially Darwin's concept of natural selection was fairly straightforward but as we have gained more and more detailed information in many areas the system of thought has been updated revised and become increasingly complex. The same is true I believe for your chosen field. In the same way as research into the consiousness, identity, intenionality, neuroscience, etc,etc. have expanded the arguments from reason and other arguments related to the underlying in-validity of materialistic naturalism have expanded and developed greater robustness and complexity.

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    On the other hand you will find if you read these papers that supernturalism allows that some beliefs are rational including the scientific method. It seems paradoxical (and is not what is commonly mispercieved about these philosophies) but when you really dig down and understand naturalism (which underlies atheism) and supernaturalism (which underlies theism) that's how it actually works out. Again good luck.

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Is it me viking or has the argument for the existence of God over the past say 200 years just become more and more complicated until only the intellectual elite can actually understand it? Reading these posts it certainly seems that way, is this because as knowledge of the world etc.. has increased this is the natural consequence?

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agentorangex,
    by the way here is an example of the argument for naturalism and against supernaturalim given by the foremost critic of the "argument for reason".

    For naturalism is certainly a belief, and it is certainly true that naturalism entails that all beliefs are ultimately nonrational, in the sense that belief-formation analyzed to its simplest causal components is a mindless, mechanical process under naturalism.
    (Critical Review of Victor Reppert's Defense of the Argument from Reason: Richard Carrier 2004)

    In other words according to Naturalism itself all beliefs including naturalism itself (along with belief in the scientific method etc.) are "ultimately non-rational"
    well ain't that a kicker.

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:32 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Agentorangex, I spent some time looking for an appropriate web based resource on the issue of why the naturalist belief system is inherently self defeating. The web site below is a secular one committed to a naturalist world view and so is clearly not biased in favor of a religious view. Nevertheless it includes the most current update on the rational argument for supernature. It is deep going and requires some background in philosophy and logic to really understand the arguments but the arguments are well annotated so you can look up unfamiliar vocab or concepts. It also includes references to some other seminal papers and research on the topic. Good luck.
    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/reason.html

  • Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Though, possibility, doesn't denote probability, there is a difference & based on evidence we choose which is more probable for each proposition. We use logic & reason, not emotion of life everlasting, to determine the probability for such propositions. Thus why the sign reads 'probably'."

    In my case, I have seen year after year of highly improbable things occur consistant with what the Bible says God will do for us. We're not talking about praying for something to be on the menu tonight and it being there. We're talking about always being able to find a job that met my needs even when others were not able to find a job. My parents were booked on a flight in the Philippines but were able to get an earlier flight to have a few weeks they wanted in Manila before leaving the islands. The plane they were booked on was taken over by terrorists and destroyed. I got custody of my kids in SC in the 90's! The list of how God protected me from the sins of my ex-wife is astounding. We were praying at the initial hearing that God would act. Their just happened to be unscheduled road work on the interstate at the exact time she was heading to court and it made her 2 hours late. Why then? Why there? The list just goes on.

    In short, if I had that same kind of "luck" I could go to Vegas and have all the money anyone could want! My entire life experience is not probable. Still, it exists. This is why the Bible calls for us to be "witnesses" of our faith. We can argue all day about posibilities and probabilities but my life experiences speak for themselves.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Church
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Baker Publishing Group

This full-text Bible is perfect for children who have outgrown Bible storybooks, but who would struggle to read the small type of most Bibles. The large, easy-to-read 12.5 point ty

Featured Advertiser Links