Get off the bus - 'there is no God'

Richard Dawkins is helping fund a campaign by the British Humanist Association to persuade people that God does not exist. Posters are to be placed on 30 bendy buses in London in January with the slogan: 'There's probably no God. So stop worrying and enjoy your life.' The campaign is the idea of comedy writer Ariane Sherine, who suggested it on a blog after hearing about a Christian campaign promoting the concept of everlasting flames in hell for unbelievers. The Atheist Bus Campaign will come shortly after the annual church campaign promoting Christianity during the festive Christmas season. My colleague Adam Sherwin broke the story first in The Times. As Ekklesia reports, the Methodists were among the first to welcome this. Read more about it on the JustGiving blog.

This could be a classic case of what psychotherapists describe as 'transference'. I take some delight in learning from this that Richard Dawkins and the small number of people who belong to the British Humanist Association have clearly been worrying about the existence of God. We all assumed they didn't care, but I guess something has to explain the apparent anger that leaps from every page of The God Delusion. When I interviewed Dawkins I found, to my surprise, that there seemed to be the potential at least for some kind of belief. In a rational, fearsomely intelligent man this would understandably promote some alarm.

For myself, I have no trouble believing in God and it neither helps nor hinders my enjoyment of life. Making faith, or the lack of it, the determinant of pleasure is rather missing the point, in my view. But I don't believe in bendy buses, and never will. The sooner Boris bans them the better.

Comments

[j]

Thank you to both Theo and Andrew and I am sorry that the blog weirdness has prevented me from seeing these comments before.

Andrew I agree that Christians should not be excluded from public policy. Goodness knows it is a valid and decent set of beliefs. Though of course it is best if we keep off gay rights as many of those who say that their intervention is christian tend to focus on that. I think- in fact I am sure- that there are many christians on government who just live quietly by their faith.

Theo thank you, I have read them before but if I get five minutes over Christmas (ha ha) I will read them again.

[Theo Dexter]

J

I am sure that you will get much from the discussions here.

However may I suggest some other sources to study?

Matthew Chapters 5 to 7
Proverbs Chapter 3
The Book of Job.

Also “The problem of pain” and “A grief observed” by C S Lewis. Although incomplete and flawed these books are honest and human. They probably will not answer all your questions but may help with your search

[andrew holden]

"One thing I come here to explore is whether good people of faith would tackle an ethical issue differently from good people of no faith, and what their respective insights might be..."

Its easy to get carried away with divine command ethics - God said, etc. However, for believers, this is a kind of shorthand. If God gave a certain command it wasn't arbitrary and ethical reasoning can usually bring us to the same place, even without mentioning God.

Clearly we don't find many non-believers rejecting basic Christian ethics like 'love your neighbour', 'defend the vulnerable', treat people with justice and equity, etc, etc.

As George says it may be that these are human values - but a believer will think they are human values because they are divine ones - if we are made in the 'image of God' then it is hardly surprising if there is a moral likeness.

There are a few exceptions to the general accord on ethics that I can see. The first is the traditional Christian rejection of homosexuality which certainly goes against the grain of most secular ethics (though not all Christians agree with the traditional line) and the other is the (general) Christian rejection of abortion - which, rightly or wrongly, is based on a very high estimation of the value of human life. That there are a few exceptions doesn't suggest to me that believers and non-believers cannot do ethics together and find their way to a measure of agreement.

The basic rationality of ethics as I see it is why I can't understand the view of those who would deny believers a voice in the political processes involved in people making decisions about how to order our shared society.

[j]

"The point remains that if you somehow eliminated religion overnight people in general would be no better in a moral sense. Evil people would simply find other justifications for their deeds - as indeed they do already. Bad religion may indeed be PART of the problem - but good religion can (indeed MUST) be part of the solution."

I agree with Andrew on this. If someone has faith, then clearly it is part of his or her way of behaving ethically. Good faith is certainly part of the solution.

One thing I come here to explore is whether good people of faith would tackle an ethical issue differently from good people of no faith, and what their respective insights might be, and what the strengths and weaknesses of each POV might be.

Its difficult to separate that out from sectarian opinions and very quickly- and frustratingly- we get into attacks on other positions- but it remains an interesting question.

[George Parr]

Andrew: "Bad religion may indeed be PART of the problem - but good religion can (indeed MUST) be part of the solution."

Agreed, same hymnsheet! But 'good' and 'bad' are notoriously problematic and difficult to define. You cannot be saying that there is a general consensus over definition, say, in Christianity?

It's rather cliched, but my worry is that there really is an imbalance, with religion arguably causing more problems than it solves. Its hypothetical elimination demonstrates your point but I might argue that in Britain I can actually see the benefits of separation rather than anything else; from the perspective that unbelievers or members of different faiths can no longer relate to Anglicanism; in my view sold as a falsely dominant worldview.

[Theo Dexter]

George

Thank you for the discussion. Till the next time.

[andrew holden]

"Not 'derived from' Andrew, more like human principles of mutuality and experience 'embodied within' the tradition as ideals surely? "

Its not really an either/or. From a Christian point of view our humanity is a gift of God, indeed human beings are made in His image. So authentic humanism is religious - but it is also true that ethics, like science, can be done 'leaving God out of the picture'. There is no need to invoke the divine in ethical discourse but every reason to celebrate the outcome as something that God approves of.

Clearly religious people don't always live up to the best that their tradition requires and sometimes abuse their tradition in order to justify evil. Does that reflect badly on religion per se or human nature more generally?

The point remains that if you somehow eliminated religion overnight people in general would be no better in a moral sense. Evil people would simply find other justifications for their deeds - as indeed they do already. Bad religion may indeed be PART of the problem - but good religion can (indeed MUST) be part of the solution.

[George Parr]

"...but the principles that religious people argue for and base proposed policies upon are also derived from that 'dubious' tradition..."

Not 'derived from' Andrew, more like human principles of mutuality and experience 'embodied within' the tradition as ideals surely?

As an exemplar for religious involvment in social policies, or indeed human behaviour generally, you could also have pointed out the surfeit of utter wickedness equally demonstrated by those claiming piety, which clearly illustrates the absolute reverse - arguably no significant difference being evinced between the holy and profane!

Since diverse religions are intertwined with society I can see no sensible alternative regarding having a common ethical discussion, which in some cases questions bible literalism, and from which policies affecting all can be either accepted or rejected. I argue against extremes, and along with you I suspect, I find the position of some posting here to be extreme.

I am certainly not saying that only the pious behave irrationally, although for me there is plenty of evidence questioning some perceived religious 'logic'. But this is more to do with insistency - defining social policies through claimed intuition of the divine and little else.

I also think that yours is the 'straw man' however! Toodlepip!

[George Parr]

Theo: "Mankind appears to be much more preoccupied with that other certainty taxes."

Notwithstanding taxes also go back some way, I wonder if you have accepted that reviewing cultures, narratives or perceived events critically from a historical perspective necessarily effects or alters meaning, possesses a commonality based on contemporary subjectivity and cannot be wholly understood in a contemporary sense.

I can't agree therefore what you say about death. Arguably, in general terms, pre-historical and medieval life was cheap, social systems often lethal, life expectancy low and human aspiration the province of the few.

In the absence of meaningful science, causatory factors regarding plagues and untimely death were also perceived as having a social, divine relevance and were explained through notions of gods controlling human behaviour. The perceived 'meaning' of death itself proposed gods, pagan and then Christian and supported a perfectly logical means to deal with it - death wrapped up in life and contingent upon it via metaphysical forces. I think, to some extent this system has survived in a distorted form, gathering impetus and self-bolstering narrative on the way.

As you expected, and with respect, I cannot see how, in real terms your 'God is. God is spirit. God is love' defines anything. It seems at best a poetic substitution for fact, within a system that struggles for cogency, a self-perpetuating side-product of faith if you like.

I accept we differ considerably and I have investigated the testimony of Jesus. At least we continue to discuss our differences politely and lose nothing by it.

[andrew holden]

"I do not believe that worldviews based upon nothing more than myth and intuition, or dubious 'testimony' are suitable vehicles for proposing policies which affect everyone else."

Couldn't agree more - but the principles that religious people argue for and base proposed policies upon are also derived from that 'dubious' tradition - principles of loving your fellow man and dealing with him in a just and equitable fashion. As I've said before most religious people accept that simply saying 'the Bible says' or 'God commands' is not enough and the reasons why certain policies are being put forward can be discussed by all with reference to the ethical tradition and others. If they don't pass logically or rationally they can be opposed or rejected. And, of course, its not just religious people who can occasionally behave in an illogical or irrational manner, now is it?

So methinks that yet again you are putting forward a bit of a 'straw man' here!

[Theo Dexter]

George

There has been some “crossover” in our posts with some questions being answered before they appear to be put etc.

To respond to your latest points - Christians I know do not regard God as indefinable but rather intangible. However you may baulk at the terms used in the definition but try these for starters.

God is.
God is spirit.
God is love.

“I don't accept that there was 'first nothing' and then something. What suggests that - and how far back might that be, or not?”

This is suggested because the “steady state” theory of the universe has been replaced by the “big bang” theory which holds that there was a start. Of course the “big bang” theory may itself be replaced in time.

Further with regard to your “fear” of death suggestion leading to agreeable constructs to deal with this certainty, I think you overplay this. Mankind appears to be much more preoccupied with that other certainty taxes. Most adults, unlike the character Hamlet, face death in a sober manner and fear only a disagreeable process of dying not death itself.

Finally, I urge you to consider the testimony of Jesus. You may find it is all the credible evidence you need. It is for you to decide.

[George Parr]

"Is the testimony true? Your decision"

Impossible to say, for either you or me, let alone make a decision! 'The testimony' as a means by which 'belief' can be supported is your problem Theo.

There are equally no answers to your proposal and I'm afraid that I do not think that the question holds water. I'm not even sure which question you are asking. Are you saying that since, as far as we are aware, we exist in a stream of consciousness (which you have defined as ('something') and which, arguably, nothing preceded I am to propose how that can be? Or are you telling me that, for you, 'something' clearly arrived from 'nothing' and if God was not responsible, you wish to hear from me some alternative theories?

In either case, like you, I have no credible information - looking past notions of the 'big bang'. But then, unlike you, I am not saying I have. All I would say is that you and I are in the same position. I have no theories, because I am unwilling to try to flesh out the invisible or insoluble, when almost ANYTHING might apply. You have a theory that you cannot prove and which, frankly, many find unlikely.

I am curious to know why you are so willing to leap onto a dubious ideology that has been arrived at by medievalists and seized upon and interpreted variously by the most unreliable of luminaries - none of whom are wholly credible as sources and with the rest of 'faith' appearing to rely on intuition?

I wholeheartedly support your right to have faith however - but I do not believe that worldviews based upon nothing more than myth and intuition, or dubious 'testimony' are suitable vehicles for proposing policies which affect everyone else.

I'm afraid I think it to be a personal matter - this, no doubt greeted by howls of disapproval in some quarters.

[andrew holden]

George, my assessement of the evidence (which remains just that and one I cannot insist that everyone MUST follow) is that the evidence, such as it is, points to the existence of God being the best possible explanation for the world and for my own experience of faith. I cannot deny, admitting that I am a fallible human being, following in a fallible human tradition, that there are other possible explanations and that ultimately I could be wrong.

Neverthless I judge, for that is all any of us can do, that the scriptures are generally reliable being properly understood. Note that 'generally reliable' is not the same as 'without error' or 'infallible'. They are data on which I risk my life of faith.

Up to now that 'experiement' has been worthwhile. I judge that living the christian life has been, for me, a more life enhancing experience than living without faith. You may judge me to be wrong or deceived. I hope that you wouldn't find me to be a fool or one lacking in integrity. If I get to the gates of heaven and find that its all been a deception then I will still think that the life will have been worth living this way for the little taste of heaven I've enjoyed already.

Finally, regarding your question about risking this particular life of faith. I observe that all human beings live largely by faith in something or other. This way seems, to me, to be better than the alternatives. In the end none of us can have definitive proof for how we chose to live and love - because such proof doesn't exist for any way of life not just the Christian way - but I choose to live and love as a Christian.

YMMV!

[Theo Dexter]

George

I did not say that it was easy or that it was not without some of the problems you suggest. However the challenge is for you now to look at it in depth and come to your own judgement.

Is the testimony true? Your decision.

I do not think that the position that “nothing made everything” is tenable but I am willing to hear arguments from those that hold it.

Please propose your answer to this question so that we may debate which answer is the best possible answer.

[George Parr]

Theo, firstly, I have never claimed to be an atheist and I did not suggest that you used the term 'must', although you now qualify it by loosely defining measurement.

Not to use it shows open-mindedness, but to get it straight, presumably you accept that 'God' is indefinable in human terms, but you carry on anyway?

On the basis that Christians regard God as indefinable, surely it is logical to propose that other indefinable dimensions, unhuman rationales or states of 'being', equally beyond our comprehension, possibly exist, or that the human designation of 'maker' might be wide of the mark. I accept that even these ideas are founded on human values, but they may not describe them, or their realisation may not exist in terms we can understand. Why should they?

No, in Christianity and all other major religions, we have ideologies based solely on human values; the extant texts, apocrypha, interpretation, themes of sin and repentance. God as 'being' is defined wholly in human terms, with not the slightest possibility that he she or it might be simply an appropriate manifestation of a plethora of unknowns, or totally unrelated phenomea. Hang on to your notions of God Theo. You might be right, but you have no credible evidence.

Unlike you, I am not pretending to offer an explanation for 'how' and 'why'. How could I?

I don't accept that there was 'first nothing' and then something. What suggests that - and how far back might that be, or not?

"Why should some of the “everything” come to consider and contemplate the eternal and spiritual?"

What's 'the eternal and spiritual' in real terms, other than a measure of what we do not know. If you mean, how do we arrive at asking the general question 'why' we are conscious, no-one knows. Put it down to Gods if you will. One compelling reason for constructing what may prove to be an entirely human illusion of deities is based in the human experience of certain death and the associated fear of the unknown that it generates. So construct something agreeable and benign to extend life and then subject it to the vagaries of human nature, which will surely exploit it.

[George Parr]

Andrew:

"George: ...'I can find no evidence'...Actually, George... believers...present lots of evidence in support of the existence of God."

Andrew, believers know there is no definable evidence which leads to truth or proof of the existence of gods, which is why they have faith. And 'having faith' is also a state of mind, in some cases easily achieved, its proponents having assessed the barest of evidence or none. For many, faith continues to rely on accepting a position adopted and expressed by others as credible, or embracing a degree of nostalgic reflexion of childhood memories.

I agree that there is plenty of data - a very great proportion of which consists of 'holy writing'; a symbiotic narrative gleaned from fundamental 'sources', which for some has become evidence.

But much in the same way that numerous historians have been found by postmodernists to have produced narrative in various colours - if you like, creating their own history - for example, no-one sensible would read uncritically accounts by French historians writing politically in the 1660s about Louis XIV. 'Evidence' it might later have become, accurate it is not.

Regrading Theo's denuciation of those who think that 'nothing made something', is it sensible or rational to put your faith in 'one possible answer' or rather one possibility, creating policy on the basis that it is 'the' answer?

[George Parr]

Theo; "...personal testimony. This evidence is acceptable in courts of law however..."

Its acceptability greatly depends on the degree of credibility however. Two thousand year old alibis, or statements made by wishful thinkers, who 'know' something mystically, or who are regarded as somehow nearer to God than others cannot be taken seriously - and indeed are not entertained in any other worldly context. Personal testimony does not guarantee validity.

Asking 'why light?' or 'why water?' is certainly part of a scientific rational - although I can see your perspective. The problem is, asking the question does not propose or validate gods; it just confirms unknowing.

The 'testimony of Jesus', as a source is fraught with problems as far as I can see. Translation, massive time lapse, human frailty and inaccuracy, a multiplicity of interpretative variants, a generally dismissive approach to the unenlightened, unscientific ambient culture, contextual difficulties and a hugely disproportionate relevance dating back into the mists of pre-history being just some.

[Theo Dexter]

George

“Why must 'everything' be the result of endeavour, with 'making' a term measured solely through the canon of human values and interpretation? Why should 'nothing' propose a metaphor for god(s)?”

First I did not use the term “must”.

Second surely all our terms are “measured solely through the canon of human values and interpretation”. What other terms are there to use?

Thirdly, I am not suggesting that “nothing” proposed anything. A more pertinent question is why should some of the “everything” come to consider and contemplate the eternal and spiritual?

“"I am not saying that God either exists or does not, just that I can find no evidence.”

Then you are an agnostic not an atheist and you appear to restrict yourself to accepting scientific evidence. Something never designed to detect God so your position is not challenged.

Why not consider other forms of evidence?

Further:-

First nothing - then stuff everywhere!

What is your explanation for “How” and “Why”?

[andrew holden]

Why should 'nothing' propose a metaphor for god(s)?

Good question - but one I can only answer with more puzzles.

If first there was 'nothing' then why did 'something' arise at all?

If there has always been 'something' then that's no less intellectually puzzling. Why is there 'something' rather than 'nothing'?

I agree that God isn't necessarily the answer to these puzzles - but he is one possible answer.

[andrew holden]

George: "I am not saying that God either exists or does not, just that I can find no evidence. "

Actually, George, I doubt that is the case. Believers here and elsewhere present lots of evidence in support of the existence of God. Since you don't find this evidence compelling or convincing you reject the reasoning built upon it.

What you appear to lack is proof. This may be an unreasonable requirement since proof is only possible in Mathematics. In all other disciplines people assess evidence and make up their minds about problems and propositions on the basis of the probable weight of evidence - and in all such disciplines people disagree about what that evidence supports.

In this sense religion is no different than other areas of human endeavour. The data of theology is largely historical and experiential - problematic I agree, but still data to be argued over.

[andrew holden]

Mike, claims about physical reality, are to do with science - and when believers make such claims they should indeed be tested in a scientific manner. I also agree that 'get-out' clauses are inappropriate and that 'lack of logic' should be confronted. Neverthless I find your implied belief that philosophical and political beliefs are somehow immune from these failings quite touching.

Perhaps you could let us know which political party and which school of philosophy is in possession of 'the truth' so that we can abandon the, apparently pointless charade of democracy?

Most religious people value reason as much as anyone else does. Simply saying 'the Bible says' or 'God told me' is clearly not sufficient. That hardly means that religious people should be denied their human rights - just that they can and should be expected to be as rational in their proposals as anyone else. I agree they have a tendency to resort to divine command ethics - but that is only one (often misunderstood actually) element of religious philosophy. They can and do use other forms of ethical reasoning.

[Theo Dexter]

George

Perhaps it is more the term “evidence” that needs to be explored here. You seem to restrict it to scientific evidence only.

Scientific evidence is designed to deal crudely with the material - to answers the questions –“how” and “what”. It is not designed to answer the question "why". For example what is light? What is water and how is it made? Not why light? Why water?

Scientific research still in its infancy may find the “God Particle” the Higgs boson but as God is not a particle it will not find God.

Scientific research is unsuitable for finding God it is rather like using a manometer to determine the speed of light -not the best of ideas.

There is another form of evidence that of personal testimony. This evidence is acceptable in courts of law however you appear to dismiss it in this context.

I suggest you examine the testimony of Jesus and ask yourself is he speaking the truth? It is your decision.

[George Parr]

Theo: "I am astounded that people believe nothing made everything"

Why must 'everything' be the result of endeavour, with 'making' a term measured solely through the canon of human values and interpretation? Why should 'nothing' propose a metaphor for god(s)?

[Mike]

Andrew Holden wrote

"Thankfully we live in a society established on the right of people to seek to impliment change on the basis of what is important to them ('just' beliefs!). Why should religious people be denied this right whilst others may use political or philosophical views as a foundation for seeking democratic change?"

Because religious people are making claims about physical reality that are simply not true, using a get-out clause peculiar to religion called "faith" to excuse any lack of logic or empirical evidence. And we let them get away with it. Philosophical or political beliefs are entirely different to a frankly bizarre belief in the existence of, for instance, invisible pink unicorns.

[George Parr]

Theo: "George, this cuts both ways you have no evidence that God does not exist either - just faith that He does not."

Not so Theo. 'Belief' varies in its meaning here. I am not saying that God either exists or does not, just that I can find no evidence.

'Belief' therefore, forms no part of my argument, other than on one level to equate its meaning loosely with 'thinking'. This, in itself, is not a 'belief' in the sense that a faith in God needs to be maintained where there is a sustained absence, mounting scientific evidence to the contrary or where it forms part of an assertion based only on theory.

[j]

and Andrew- I have posted on the Palin thread about the congo warlord which is a fascinating example of this.

[j]

"You know I've thought about this problem for a very long time. It has always seemed to me that Religion has a capacity for inspiring both the best and the worst in human nature.

It produces saints who are humble, caring, loving, peaceful and self-effacing people and also sinners who are arrogant, selfish, hateful, violent and proud.

Does this conundrum somehow disprove religion - or does it illustrate the truth of the religious message that sin can spoil anything and everything?"

I think what it proves to me, Andrew, is that behaviour and faith are not as closely linked as people like to think.

Atheism also produces the same range of behaviours.

To me, faith is a form of love- entirely independent of utilitarianism. Faith should not have to be useful, or more useful than atheism. It is not a good argument for the existence of god to say, he must exist or people would behave badly. Firstly, they already do behave, both badly and well, and as we both see, there seems to be little correlation between faith and behaviour.

Secondly, even if faith would make people behave better, that doesn't make god true, only highly desirable.

What "proves" god is faith and people's personal trust and experience in god.

[Theo Dexter]

Norman

Then in the words of the song “You would HAVE to believe”. No choice.

I am astounded that people believe nothing made everything.

[andrew holden]

Norman: "As I have said elsewhere, a flea can demonstrate its existence quite convincingly. Why not god?"

Here's a good reason. At the moment religion is compelling (to those of us who are religious) rather than complusory.

If there were incontrovertible evidence for God's existence (and you have not answered my question about why and how a supernatural being could demonstrate his/her existence - after all a flea is not a supernatural being!) then religion would not be a free choice but an imposed requirement.

I can't see you liking that.

[Norman]

Just using the ordinary meanings of the words "god" and "exist," it is pretty obvious that god does not exist. The usual way believers get round this is to redefine "exist" by adding eg "outside time and space" or some other claptrap that renders the whole thing literally meaningless.

As I have said elsewhere, a flea can demonstrate its existence quite convincingly. Why not god?

[andrew holden]

JP said: "Thank you for confirming the irreducible nature of Christian religious belief, that is, despite all the lovey-dovey waffle about "tolerance" and "love", Christianity ultimately defines itself through who it can despise, hate and persecute."

You know I've thought about this problem for a very long time. It has always seemed to me that Religion has a capacity for inspiring both the best and the worst in human nature.

It produces saints who are humble, caring, loving, peaceful and self-effacing people and also sinners who are arrogant, selfish, hateful, violent and proud.

Does this connundrum somehow disprove religion - or does it illustrate the truth of the religious message that sin can spoil anything and everything?

On All Saints Day perhaps we can all aspire to sainthood and seek deliverance from sinful behaviours.

[j]

"In the meantime the best we can do is to have the integrity to be true to ourselves and our experience of the world, which does allow for passionate faith, whilst at the same time having the humility to acknowledge we don’t have all the questions let alone all the answers.

"

hear hear, Andrew.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Telling a gay couple in a loving longterm relationship that they cant ever have sex seems a bit of a cheek to me, for instance."
- J, 31 OCT 2008, 16:10:03

So?

[cp36]

Andrew Holden said, "So in the end we really do only have probabilities (on both sides of the argument) ..."

Yes, and the two Probabilities that God exists and doesn't exist can be studied by using Bayes Theorem. The probability that God exists has to be a Bayesian Probability since there is no experiment one can design to prove that God exists. A Bayesian Probability is a measure of "one's degree of belief" and is also governed by the same Laws of Probability. One's Prior Probability that God exists, is updated to a Posterior Probability given the Evidence. The Probability that God doesn't exist is also incorporated in the calculation. And so everyone's belief can be expressed in terms of Probability.

Everything in Christianity is by Faith. If a person is 100% certain then why would he or she need Faith? There is a link between Faith and Probability.

Dr Stephen D. Unwin's book, "The Probability of God" may be interesting to read. He was born in the UK and a theoretical physicist. He says his objective is to calculate the probability that the true answer is yes, that God exists.

Cheers

[andrew holden]

Jim Rogers posted a helpful contribution stating, "we have to couch belief or disbelief in statements that admit doubt."

Actually I prefer to say that we make provisional affirmations of FAITH. This is very different from certainty but allows more commitment than is possible with the negative admission of doubt.

Any debate about the existence of God must define two very important terms: God and existence. Many people make all sorts of assumptions about both without considering the implications.
There is no logical reason, for example, why we should expect to be able to apply empirical scientific methods to test the validity of a God who is not a ‘thing’ in the universe. A supernatural God cannot be subject to the scrutiny of scientific investigation and the assertion of the existence of such a God is (scientifically) a non-falsifiable hypothesis. A supernatural God, if he/she exists is beyond the realm of science.

When we come to the concept of existence we have another problem. If God is not an entity/being within the universe what arguments or proofs are relevant to a consideration of the question of his/her existence? If there is no scientific proof of the existence or non-existence of God that may mean not only that the question of the existence of God is one that science cannot answer – but it may also suggest that science can’t even ask the question.

We are left with a conundrum. Two world-views representing two hypotheses or philosophical paradigms: the theistic hypothesis (Dawkins’ “God hypothesis”) and the naturalist hypothesis (a “no-God hypothesis”) which we may ‘test’ against the data of the world and our experience of it asking which makes best sense of what we know.

So in the end we really do only have probabilities (on both sides of the argument) and we all need to have the humility to accept that our paradigm is merely provisional awaiting more complete evidence which may not ever be available in this world/life. In the meantime the best we can do is to have the integrity to be true to ourselves and our experience of the world, which does allow for passionate faith, whilst at the same time having the humility to acknowledge we don’t have all the questions let alone all the answers.

[j]

"I agree that no-one should be allowed to 'dictate' to others but, frankly, the biggest 'dictators' around at the moment are those politicians running Nanny State not the relatively benign, generally quite liberal, bishops of the Church of England."

not so benign if you are a gay couple wanting to be part of your church, though, A. Or have a church wedding, for example.

There's quite a lot of dictating goes on, in a very quiet and British way.

telling a gay couple in a loving longterm relationship that they cant ever have sex seems a bit of a cheek to me, for instance.

[J Pearce]

"Which type of Christianity are you alluding to, Mr P? "

Exactly.

"Since we Christians are all human beings, it follows that our religion must have human failings, n'est-ce pas? "

But..errr..the Pope, Gods chosen representative on Earth? He's a fallible human, then? Careful Geoff, you wouldn't want to defy centuries of Catholic dogma in such a public manner, it won't look good on the CV when you reach the Pearly Gates...

"Human flaws or no, she is divinely protected from enemies such as you."

Ah, Geoff, life must be so simple in the Christian Taleban. Thank you for confirming the irreducible nature of Christian religious belief, that is, despite all the lovey-dovey waffle about "tolerance" and "love", Christianity ultimately defines itself through who it can despise, hate and persecute.

I mean, have you actually heard about that chap Jesus?

Of course, it has never occurred to you that the nature of religion and religious belief predates Christianity by some margin and that pre-Biblical cultures fostered religious belief systems that have outlasted yours, in terms of raw timescales. "Eternal" isn't quite correct either, seeing as the Catholic Church only came into being less than two thousand years ago.

Wrong again, Geoff. Never mind, eh?

[iain rae]

Bring on the buses. After a lifetime of posters outside churches proclaiming "the truth",it will make a pleasant change. Where can I send some money?

[andrew holden]

Phil: "At the end of the day you can believe what ever you want to, but just so long as you realise that it is just a BELIEF, and therefore accordingly you should have no right to dictate/influence society on the back of it."

Thankfully we live in a society established on the right of people to seek to impliment change on the basis of what is important to them ('just' beliefs!). Why should religious people be denied this right whilst others may use political or philosophical views as a foundation for seeking democratic change?

British society is very much the better off for having been based on (some) Christian values. These are a subset of wider human values - but no less important for that.

I agree that no-one should be allowed to 'dictate' to others but, frankly, the biggest 'dictators' around at the moment are those politicians running Nanny State not the relatively benign, generally quite liberal, bishops of the Church of England.

[jim rogers, sydney]

The word "probably" in the slogan was also being honest about such a metaphysical, unprovable statement about God. Even "almost certainly" pertaining to God's existence or non-existence is too strong a statement given the lack of concrete evidence on which to base either assumption. One can say one believes it is almost certain God doesn't or does exist, based upon prior experience and evidence up until now, but much of this is personal, untestable subjective experience, which differs for all of us in content and perception, so is by nature and definition extremely fallible. There is not enough evidence to make a universal emphatic statement answering the question that is anything other than fallible conjecture.

Are we justified in reasoning from (repeated) instances of which we have experience to other instances (conclusion) of which we have no experience? Hume thought "no, however great the number of repetitions". "Why, nevertheless, do all reasonable people expect, and believe, that instances of which they have no experience will conform to those of which they have experience?" Hume said this was because of custom and habit, being conditioned by repetition and the association of ideas.
Popper believed that assumptions about future events, let alone universal hypotheses, cannot even be found inductively. "Induction simply does not exist, and the opposite view is a straightforward mistake".

We cannot prove universal synthetic statements. Hence we never know for certain whether they are true. All assumptions expressed in universal statements are fallible. Thus "we must regard all laws and theories as hypothetical or conjectural; that is, as guesses" (Popper) -- there is no certain knowledge, except perhaps in pure sciences, logic and mathematics. Even many strong scientific theories can only be held as true so long as they remain free of contrary evidence showing them to be false, either generally or in certain circumstances and backgrounds. Many are background-dependent, and may not hold for all regions, circumstances, or worlds (eg subatomic, human and cosmic, or within a singularity/black holes, different areas of galaxies, another universe etc).

Given the untestability of God's existence, and the controversial nature of the "evidence" up until now, then the metaphysical statements about God are hypotheses and conjecture. We have to couch belief or disbelief in statements that admit doubt.
I don't use atheism to mean God could not possibly or definitely does not exist, and a better use of the term atheist covers those who see no evidence that there is a God, and see no reason to postulate one, and think it unlikely such evidence will appear, but if more conclusive evidence were to appear then that position would obviously need to be re-assessed or reversed. I appreciate not all are as guarded.

Some theists or practicing religious folk may offer the alternative point of view about God's likely existence, but still stated as a hypothesis they strongly believe to be true and have faith in, and on which they prefer to base their life and moral framework, sometimes for pragmatic reasons even though their belief may be more hope than conviction, and I can appreciate those positions. Others however dogmatically say God exists, definitively and without doubt. That is the position that some atheists including me find difficult to deal with. Either we totally dismiss and ignore such a position, or are forced to engage and point out its dogmatic inductive fallacy.

Individual religions have many particular teachings and beliefs which are based upon "evidence" that is often lacking or controversial and certainly not provable beyond doubt. Monotheisms all consider some individuals as prophets with divine authority and then add weight to their teachings, and believe in a heaven and a hell, and that we have an immortal soul, and Christianity of course believes in Jesus as a resurrected Son of God, conceived via a virgin conception and ascended into heaven etc etc. Many of these beliefs could or should be considered either hearsay, conjecture, hypotheses, or theories, and are not provable fact, so all are fallible beliefs. A fair-minded theist would admit that.

Their is no easy way for individual inner spiritual experiences to be subjected to scientific blinded trial. The personal benefit derived from a belief and the power of inner conviction may be at odds with the raw data that says such certainty and conviction is based upon unprovable evidence, and is inherently fallible, and not valid when regarded as a definitive factual induction that says God just IS.

[andrew holden]

Phil: "Funny thing is that the Invisble Dragon in my garage also claims to have made the universe and also just IS. He spoke to me in my dreams so it MUST BE TRUE, and he also dictated to me"

Phil, I don't recall ever claiming to have taken dictation from God - nor is it a claim made by my religion.

We must draw our own conclusions here about which set of believers are suffering from delusions.....

[j]

"ISTM that the idea that all believers are irrational people holding childish beliefs is as arrogant and insulting as the claim from some believers that all atheists are immoral and selfish. "

Andrew I agree with you entirely. I wish that my fellow atheists could show some respect, and stick to debating the issues. But that seems to be very difficult for atheist and believer alike.

[j]

"ibellous? You don't know the meaning of the word."

Trust me, GS, I do.

It is a libel to call Senator Obama a liar, as you did, which is why you got the snip. Check with Ruth if you dont believe me.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"BTW, I would say that your definition of God (27 Oct 11:22) is pretty good. It's a pity the same cannot be said of Christianity, which is as flawed as any human-created institution can ever be."
- J Pearce, 29 OCT 2008, 12:50:57

Which type of Christianity are you alluding to, Mr P? Mr David Smith's or mine? Or perhaps Mr Beekman's? Since we Christians are all human beings, it follows that our religion must have human failings, n'est-ce pas? No great surprise then, right? The astounding thing is that we are still around after 2000 years, when all human political institutions dating from 33 AD have long since disappeared. The Catholic Church existed centuries before England came into being, and she will still exist centuries after England has gone the way of all empires - into oblivion. The Church is eternal and everlasting because her Founder is eternal. Human flaws or no, she is divinely protected from enemies such as you.

[Theo Dexter]

George

This cuts both ways you have no evidence that God does not exist either - just faith that He does not.

[J Pearce]

Geoff,

No need to be shy. You can name me and the thread you are referring to in regards to Dave Smith's allegations of "physical intimidation".

I offer you the same answers I gave him. There was no physical threat, unless your defintion of a physical threat, is proposing a hypothetical situation, which will never actually exist, where one individual asks another individual to explain themselves personally.

I suspect Dave was so short of cogent responses to my points on that particular thread, that he chose to play to the gallery with wild accusations aimed at undermining my integrity. In other words, one of his standard ploys during discourse.

BTW, I would say that your definition of God (27 Oct 11:22) is pretty good. It’s a pity the same cannot be said of Christianity, which is as flawed as any human-created institution can ever be.

[Phil]

ANDREW HOLDEN said "God isn't anything like an invisible dragon or a fairy at the bottom of your garden. I don't even claim that God exists - existence is a feature of physical beings with reference to space and time and God isn't a being in this sense at all nor part of this universe because he created it. God IS - which is the claim the Bible makes about him"

Funny thing is that the Invisble Dragon in my garage also claims to have made the universe and also just IS. He spoke to me in my dreams so it MUST BE TRUE, and he also dictated to me and I wrote a book - the Holy Boble. It's in a book so it also MUST BE TRUE.

At the end of the day you can believe what ever you want to, but just so long as you realise that it is just a BELIEF, and therefore accordingly you should have no right to dictate/influence society on the back of it. That goes for any and ALL religeons of this world.

The strange thing is that under any other circumstances, a believer in religeon would be classified as mentally ill.

Phil

[George Parr]

Theo,

'Belief' exists on more than one level. Its usage regarding atheists 'believing' that the existence of gods is questionable can also mean the same put thus: 'Atheists, having sought evidence for the existence of gods and found none, regard their existence as questionable'.

This does not form part of a 'belief' system nor does it require faith. Indeed, in your own case, if measurable evidence existed unequivocally identifying God, your 'faith' in God existing becomes redundant.

Your 'belief' or faith in the belief therefore relies on doubt and no empirical evidence.

There is no need for atheists to maintain any form of faith, creed or 'belief' to recognise or maintain that a state of no evidence exists.

[andrew holden]

JANE wrote "I do not imply that only Christians are righteous,merely that Christians deserve respect for their beliefs as do others."

Phil answered: "Personally I don't agree. I RESPECT a persons RIGHT to believe in whatever they want, but that does NOT mean that I have to respect their beliefs."

Depends what you mean by respect - I tend to agree with you. I think that the respect is shown in how you engage in debate, particularly when you disagree. As a Christian I have no problem with people telling me I'm wrong - but I tend to react badly when people claim that my belief in God is like belief in Father Christmas or the tooth fairy.

ISTM that the idea that all believers are irrational people holding childish beliefs is as arrogant and insulting as the claim from some believers that all atheists are immoral and selfish.

[jim]

Next bus:

"You probably don't have an eternal soul either. Make sure you enjoy this life"