Cameron Bertuzzi on Why Atheism is Silly

Cameron Bertuzzi of Capturing Christianity has put up a new video titled, “Why Atheism is Silly,” in which he responds to critics of his earlier video on atheism. The new video is quite slick and not too long (less than 30 minutes), so it is well worth watching. Here it is:

Here are my own comments, posted on Bertuzzi’s blog, which I wrote in an irenic vein. In my rely, I deliberately refrained from discussing the problem of evil, despite the fact that I find Bertuzzi’s soul-building theodicy utterly unconvincing, as he went on to say that that he was willing to allow for argument’s sake that the probability of the evil we see in the world under perfect being theism (PBT) might be as low as one in a trillion. I also refrained from mentioning his careless mathematical error of equating one in a million with .0000001 instead of .000001, as it did not materially affect his argument.

Hi Cameron. First, let me congratulate you on the new software you developed. It’s a visual tour de force.

Having said that, I have to say there are severe problems with your argument.

1. Nowhere do you define the term “theism.” What kind of being counts as a god? Would a technologically advanced Alpha Centaurian count as a god, or does it have to be a being beyond this universe? I assume you mean the latter. In that case, a being from a higher-level universe who created this universe (and other bubble universes) in a science experiment would count as a god: it would be the god of this world. Mormonism seems to believe in this kind of deity. Also, does a god have to be conscious and intelligent? I presume your answer would be yes, although I can’t help wondering whether you would regard an intelligent but non-conscious robot that was capable of creating a cosmos as a god. At this point, Thomists will strongly object that the terms “conscious” and “intelligent” can only be applied analogically to God and not univocally, so you still need to define what you mean by these terms when you apply them both to a limited god and an unlimited perfect God.

2. You confuse logical possibility with real possibility. Just because we can conceive of all sorts of disorderly, chaotic universes under atheism, it doesn’t follow that they’re really possible. In any case, does the idea of a lawless universe even make sense? After all, if it were totally lawless, how could it be described as a universe at all? And if the laws of the universe changed continually from one moment to the next, how could it be called the same universe? Shouldn’t it be called a new one? Arguably, the very notion of a universe presupposes continuity over a large region of space and time, which means that at least some of the laws of nature have to stay the same over that region.

3. In any case, all we know is that THIS universe is orderly. We don’t know about order in other universes, if there are any. The probability under atheism that some self-contained corner of the cosmos (inhabited by us, for where else could we live?) is orderly, is not astronomically low, as you contend.

4. The argument from fine-tuning is more complicated than you think. Of the thirty-or-so constants of nature, only six are fine-tuned, according to Dr. Robin Collins. Why aren’t the other 24? Also, according to a new paper discussed by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, the value of lambda in our universe is much lower than we would expect, which tells against both the multiverse and a fine-tuning deity. (See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXzV7zdl4oU .)

5. I tend to agree with you on consciousness: it does seem to be a fantastically improbable occurrence under atheism. Even if complex animals develop, why on earth should they be conscious in a godless universe? That does seem very odd. Still, an atheist might insist that just because we can imagine complex animals without consciousness, it doesn’t follow that they’re really possible, so once again, it boils down to an argument from conceivability.

6. Still, your overall point, which is that atheism has to account for not only the existence of evil (which it does very easily), but also the existence of order, fine-tuning and consciousness, remains a valid one. It is certainly possible for a theist to hold that the God hypothesis does a better job overall of accounting for these phenomena than atheism does. Cheers.

***************************

That was the end of my comment (which we’ll see if Bertuzzi deletes or not: for some peculiar reason, comments of mine on his posts often end up vanishing after a few hours). Other readers, including Christians, seemed to think that Bertuzzi’s video, while technically impressive, was an illustration of the principle: Garbage In, Garbage Out. Here’s one by a Catholic commenter called @461weavile:

Catholic Christian who studied probability and statistics here.
Atheism is silly, indeed, but I don’t think this is going to change anybody’s mind. There may be a small number of people whose footing is sured up, and great for you if this makes you more confident in your own understanding of God. Even before seeing what all the goofballs in the comments had to say, I don’t think throwing numbers at them is going to work, and especially with this limited of a scope.

Here’s another, by a Catholic commenter named @vicgrefer:

I’m a devoted Catholic. I firmly believe in God. But this will not convince anyone atheism is wrong. He’s just picking numbers he feels represent odds for different things.

And here’s a substantive comment by an atheist called @MinedMaker:

I don’t have a math degree, nor am I well versed in Bayesian mathematics, so maybe the methodology is going over my head a little, but as an atheist I find this argument very unconvincing. (Your software is very slick though, good job on that.)

Problem #1. Probabilities are based on nothing. It feels like we’re just doing the drake equation but for theism here. Sure we can make probabilistic arguments, but the conclusion is only as good as the assumptions going in. You do not know how likely or unlikely it is for the universe to be any particular way. Now I love the drake equation, it’s a fun academic exercise, but I would never take a value from it to the bank so to speak.

Problem #2: Unsupported claims. There are absolutely tons of unsupported assumptions and claims in this video that are taken as fact even though we have limited or almost no knowledge about the phenomenon in question. Some examples are as follows:

A: [6:00] “Order in the universe is not something we would expect to find.” (How do you know this?)
B: [10:36] “Most atheistic universes would look completely chaotic with objects behaving unpredictably and following local systems and rules.” (How do you know this?)
C: [13:40] The vast majority of atheistic possibilities predict disorder and chaos not the stunning regularity that we observe in this universe” (How do you know this?)
D: [15:07] “The numbers that we see, they didn’t have to fall within life-permitting ranges” (How do you know this?)
E: [15:23] “This calculation has a ton of assumptions baked into it which you do not discuss” (If for example, these constants are necessary, the odds would be 1.00. Also, the universal constants could have come about through a non-random process like for example evolution creates complex creatures.)
F: [17:53] “Under atheism there is no guiding intelligence” (Nitpicking here, but atheism doesn’t require this. Simulation hypothesis for example allows for the potential of a non-theistic intelligently designed universe.)
G: [20:22] Conscious creatures may not necessarily have to be “created beings”. This is either a misspeak or begging the question. (If you think they have to be created, I’m not sure how you would know this for certain.)
H: [21:05] “A perfect creature would recognize the intrinsic value of consciousness … all of this aligns with the perfect creator’s values.” (This is maybe unproblematic if you’re basing it off a biblical account of the Christian God, but if not, how do you know? How do you know this supposed perfect beings values? This is a bit bold and presumptive, at least from an atheist’s perspective.)
I: [22:20] “Under atheism, consciousness is wildly unexpected” (How do you know this?)
J: [22:50-23:35] This part of the video covers the very controversial and unsettled topics of the hard problem of consciousness, materialism vs non-materialism & morality. To my knowledge these topics are still actively debated in academic philosophy and society more generally. I don’t think we know enough about these topics to draw conclusions about their probability so easily as what happens in this video.

Problem #3: Methodology. I refer again to the beginning of this comment, but I question your methodology. How sensitive is the final outcome of this calculation to factors beyond that of the relative strength of the arguments we’re trying to test. I’m referring specifically to factors such as A: which/how many arguments are included, B: which/how many theories are being tested, C: which way do the arguments/theories lean, how many are in favor vs opposed. Would it be possible to get whatever outcome one wanted simply by adding more or less pro-atheist arguments, or pro-atheist theories? If so, what then is the value in doing this calculation? Why did you choose these four pieces of evidence specifically, and not some others?

Problem #4: Bias. You briefly discuss in your video the existence of theodicies that can help explain the existence of evil within perfect being theism and seemingly include this in your probability for PBT and LT. However, for atheism you seemingly don’t include any possible non-theistic rebuttals and counter-arguments. You say that just because alternative scenarios exist and are possible under atheism, that doesn’t make them likely and then you seemingly exclude all of them for being too unlikely without going into depth on any of them.

I understand that this is supposed to be a probabilistic case for theism, and that nothing is supposed to be taken as certain. However the old comp-sci adage comes to mind: “Garbage in -> Garbage out”. The conclusion is only as high-quality as the assumptions made to support it, and I don’t like the assumptions made in this case for theism.

Finally, here’s a comment by an ex-atheist named @kurarisusa, in a non-Bayesian vein:

There was a point in time that I studied atheism with the intent to become an atheist myself. I really liked the sense of self-sufficiency in it all and the romantic idea of being the master of one’s destiny. But I ran into so many problems with it, that in the end, I just couldn’t live like it was true. I’m supposed to believe that my mind is an illusion caused by the physical chemistry in my brain, that my free will is an illusion as well, and that there is no reason, no purpose for anything. That despite all the blatant appearance of design everywhere, these are all coincidences that arose spontaneously out of chaos and thus the seeming purpose of everything is also an illusion. At bottom we all have no choice, no dignity, no purpose and no destiny. And yet, no one acts in the world as if any of these things are really true. We all act like we have free will, dignity and purpose, and most of us dream of destiny as well. So finally after following their logic to its ultimate conclusion, I felt that it tried to explain away far more than it actually managed explain. It hyper focuses on one (albeit significant) problem with our understanding of the world, but in its attempts to reconcile that issue, it discounts the entire picture of reality, creating a million more. Ultimately, it destroys the most logical conclusions for the majority of human experience in the process. Atheism doesn’t match anyone’s experience of the world nor does it match our mode of acting in it. And I decided that if a theory is completely inapplicable, then I can’t believe it.

***********

I shall throw open the discussion here, and invite my readers to weigh in.

UPDATE:

Joe Schmid and Matthew Adelstein have issued a response to Cameron Bertuzzi’s video, titled, “Why it’s silly to say atheism is silly”:

It’s lengthy, but well worth watching. Enjoy!

73 thoughts on “Cameron Bertuzzi on Why Atheism is Silly

  1. I find the position that Christianity is based on evidence, but somehow all the other cultures have created imaginary religions, to be laughably ignorant of the general nature of human belief systems, and the psychology of belief.

  2. aleta,

    I find the position that Christianity is based on evidence, but somehow all the other cultures have created imaginary religions, to be laughably ignorant of the general nature of human belief systems, and the psychology of belief.

    The majority of religious people including Islam, Christian and Judaism believe in the God of Abraham.

  3. colewd:
    aleta,

    The majority of religious people including Islam, Christian and Judaism believe in the God of Abraham.

    So your “evidence” for your imaginary god is based on some sort of vote? Well, I suppose there are lots of unsupportable beliefs propped up by sheer preference, desire, and need. Look at all the voters who think Trump is competent, all the people who think there is life after death, or extraterrestrial aliens on earth, or psychic abilities, etc. etc. etc. Which have in common one thing: there is no valid evidence for any of them. And you wanting real real real bad for your imaginary god to exist is NOT evidence of your imaginary good, but it is good evidence of why believers believe bullshit.

  4. aleta:
    I find the position that Christianity is based on evidence, but somehow all the other cultures have created imaginary religions, to be laughably ignorant of the general nature of human belief systems, and the psychology of belief.

    But of course, belief in any religion requires laughable ignorance as a starting point. It requires laughable ignorance of one’s own ignorance and inability to recognize it.

    I notice Bill does not cite books written to validate other faiths, written by believers in those faiths. I wonder why not. Surely he need not fear being persuaded of the validity of Hinduism, for example. Even if the author is a sincere and devout believer in it. Even if there are millions who share that faith.

  5. Flint,

    So your “evidence” for your imaginary god is based on some sort of vote?

    The evidence for God who you label imaginary due to your difficulty arguing against His existence is a universe with observers and the documented evidence in the new and old testament which is also supported by archaeological findings.

    There is no Atheist explanation for a universe with observers as you have admitted. You claim that you do not know but you have what appears to be blind faith that the competing hypothesis, the God of Abraham, is wrong.

  6. The God of Abraham is not “the” competing hypothesis: it is “a” competing hypothesis. Given that the Western culture is a predominate portion of the world, it is not a surprise that a Western religion is widespread. That is evidence that it is cultural phenomena, not evidence that it is true.

    I know colewd is unassailably ensconced in his ideological tower, so I’ll bow out of this discussion, perhaps.

  7. aleta,

    That is evidence that it is cultural phenomena, not evidence that it is true.

    I agree it does not mean it is true but it is evidence that it is a truth claim.

    What is not clear is if there is an Atheist hypothesis for our origins. Is Atheism possibly a null hypothesis? If so then Cameron Bertuzzi analysis is correct as the null hypothesis typically means random or no cause.

  8. Colewd, as I have said, there is not a disjoint dichotomy between Western theism and “atheism”. Atheism is merely the claim that the type of god posited by certain religions doesn’t exist. “Random or no cause” is not the alternative to theistic causation. The “null hypothesis” is that the cause of the universe is beyond human comprehension and is not likely to be describable in terms analogous the our ideas of causation based on human experience.

    I know you don’t agree, but do you get what I am saying?

  9. colewd:
    aleta,

    I agree it does not mean it is true but it is evidence that it is a truth claim.

    No, it is not “evidence” as commonly understood. Yes, it is evidence that plenty of people in certain parts of the world claim to believe it, though you don’t have to look very hard to notice that the believers don’t agree (there are over 10,000 Christian sects), and that they very rarely follow the teachings of their faith. This strikes me as fairly good evidence that people aren’t unified in anything religious, but rather are unified in having wildly diverging beliefs and behaviors.

    What is not clear is if there is an Atheist hypothesis for our origins.Is Atheism possibly a null hypothesis?If so then Cameron Bertuzzi analysis is correct as the null hypothesis typically means random or no cause.

    You do yourself no favors with absurd caricatures of what you don’t understand. I regard human origins as fairly well explained, though detailed paleontological on the ground is spotty. Evolution is well understood, and is a satisfyingly full and complete theory, thoroughly evidenced in countless ways.

    As for the origin of life as we know it, it’s possible the exact evolutionary path that got things started can never be known. But that simply means that we don’t know what happened, not that we equate ignorance with godlessness. There are plenty of actual testable hypotheses out there today. The problem is, even if we could create brand new life in a lab, this would only demonstrate one possible avenue, and still wouldn’t tell us which was actually followed.

    (And I have to laugh at your conviction that some magical unknowable entity using some incomprehensible method, created the universe for reasons forever beyond us, except for motivations we project onto it. You cannot seem to realize that just SAYING this is true (or evidence of anything religious) reflects nothing beyond your own early toilet training.)

  10. Yes to all Flint said. Good. I like this: ” not that we equate ignorance with godlessness”.

    Belief in God can explain anything, therefore to profess the inability to explain is to deny God: that’s a “winner” of an unassailable argument! 🙂

  11. aleta,

    I know you don’t agree, but do you get what I am saying?

    I understand the claim you are trying to make but where is the support for this claim? If you start with no theistic god exists how would you support this?

    The challenge is a large part of the position is that you don’t know how a universe with observers was generated.

    Flint,

    Evolution is well understood, and is a satisfyingly full and complete theory, thoroughly evidenced in countless ways.

    How much does your belief rely on evolutionary theory or universal common descent being true?

  12. colewd:
    aleta,

    I understand the claim you are trying to make but where is the support for this claim?If you start with no theistic god exists how would you support this?

    The challenge is a large part of the position is that you don’t know how a universe with observers was generated.

    :
    But again, ignorance is not atheistic. From what you write, I can conclude that you regard lack of knowledge as godless, so you confect an imaginary god to fill that hole in your knowledge. I’m perfectly content with my conviction that I can never know how a universe with observers was generated – and moreso, that if I DID think I knew, I would be Making Shit Up.

    Flint,

    How much does your belief rely on evolutionary theory or universal common descentbeing true?

    Knowledge of the current state of a scientific theory is not “belief”. Evolutionary theory is simply the best-fit explanation for the biosphere currently available. I really have no conviction that universal common descent is true – there might be multiple paths to biology. Common descent seems to be the most likely or easiest path, but the simplest way isn’t necessarily the best, or only, or actual way.

    Please understand that a provisional acceptance of an explanation is not “belief” in that explanation. “Belief” is generally not knowledge, it is a substitute for knowledge.

  13. Flint writes, ” I’m perfectly content with my conviction that I can never know how a universe with observers was generated – and moreso, that if I DID think I knew, I would be Making Shit Up.”

    My point also, although I tend to use phrase like “culturally-embedded narrtives”, not “Making Shit Up”. But in some essential ways, it’s the same thing.

  14. aleta:
    My point also, although I tend to use phrase like “culturally-embedded narrtives”, not “Making Shit Up”. But in some essential ways, it’s the same thing.

    The key difference being, a culturally embedded narrative might actually have a kernel of fact, and not be 100% Will To Believe.

  15. Im only 5 mins in to the video and its in trouble already … the uniformity of natural laws. Groan.

    I suspect his lovely software creation is going to be gigo, but I will have to watch further. It may improve.

  16. Oh dog. 10 mins into the video. He picked a probability of 0.0001% or some such for order in an atheist universe, and boom!, the atheist colour bar nearly vanished.

    Do I have to continue watching this ?

  17. Flint,

    But again, ignorance is not atheistic. From what you write, I can conclude that you regard lack of knowledge as godless, so you confect an imaginary god to fill that hole in your knowledge.

    Hi Flint and Aleta
    Lack of knowledge is fine if that is your guys position. I think that claiming lack of knowledge would include the theistic position also. It appears you guys fall into the agnostic category and are outside Bertuzzi’s argument as he is treating the atheistic position as a null hypothesis or the product of random events plus the forces of nature.

  18. colewd:
    Flint,

    Hi Flint and Aleta
    Lack of knowledge is fine if that is your guys position.Ithink that claiming lack of knowledge would include the theistic position also.

    I think lack of knowledge is the essence of the theistic position. But once again, theism is a substitute for knowledge. Atheism, in this context, is acceptance that we lack knowledge but don’t seek to replace it with superstition.

    It appears you guys fall into the agnostic category and are outside Bertuzzi’s argument as he is treating the atheistic position as a null hypothesis or the product of random events plus the forces of nature.

    I guess there are some people who see only two possible alternatives – either their religious faith must be correct, or else the universe is random and meaningless (note: misrepresenting another’s opinion is not honest argument). Problem is, most of nature is far from random, events have causes (reality is deterministic), and at some fairly deep level can be understood without any need to ring in magical unevidenced entities as “explanations”. I have to keep repeating that as an “explanation”, gods militate AGAINST understanding, they actively prevent it.

  19. Flint,

    I think lack of knowledge is the essence of the theistic position. But once again, theism is a substitute for knowledge. Atheism, in this context, is acceptance that we lack knowledge but don’t seek to replace it with superstition.

    I am not sure how you get to this assertion. You personally lack knowledge. How do you know everyone else does?

  20. colewd:
    Flint,

    I am not sure how you get to this assertion.You personally lack knowledge.How do you know everyone else does?

    And you are convinced you know something for which there is NO valid evidence (and you don’t even know that!). It is actually not impossible to determine that someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

  21. Flint,

    And you are convinced you know something for which there is NO valid evidence (and you don’t even know that!). It is actually not impossible to determine that someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

    There are many scholars who believe the Christian story is true. Do you think you are knowledgeable enough to convince them that their whole academic life studying theology is essentially studying fiction?

  22. colewd:
    Flint,

    There are many scholars who believe the Christian story is true.

    Yes, there are. Problem is, ALL of these scholars are Christians. The field of biblical studies is interesting that way. NON-Christian scholars consider the probability that Jesus actually existed was very small. (Same for Moses).

    Do you think you are knowledgeable enough to convince them that their whole academic life studying theology is essentially studying fiction?

    This question is misleading. There is a very big difference between theology and biblical history. Indeed, there are theologists who study the nature, origin, beliefs, and behaviors of nearly any religion. This is a valid field of study. And some of these theological scholars are upfront in saying they aren’t studying to validate personal beliefs, but rather to understand a (or any) religion. I’ve read a few of these, and they are indeed knowledgeable and dedicated – and many of them are atheists (although I don’t think atheism is a requirement to study a religion).

    As far as archaeologists can tell, much of the OT is essentially accurate history. There is evidence that characters like David and Saul and Solomon were real people (ironically, the best evidence is letters written on cuneiform tablets by inhabitants of the cities, who complained of “bandits in the hills.” Quite a different perspective!) There is no evidence that Abraham existed, though.

    To address your question more directly, if someone has spent their whole career studying a fiction they believe must be true, I doubt there’s any hope for them. But even the dedicated Mormon archaeologists searching for on-the-ground evidence of Joseph Smith’s tales eventually came to admit (officially!) that Smith basically made it all up. So to me, the question isn’t whether they spent their lives trying to ratify nonsense, but rather whether they can admit it when it turns out to be nonsense after all.

    I don’t see Christian preachers as charlatans, don’t get me wrong. I really do not care who first wrote the teachings of Jesus, or whether there even was a Jesus. The lessons attributed to Jesus are valuable and worth taking to heart.

  23. Flint,

    I don’t see Christian preachers as charlatans, don’t get me wrong. I really do not care who first wrote the teachings of Jesus, or whether there even was a Jesus. The lessons attributed to Jesus are valuable and worth taking to heart.

    Here is some common ground we have arrived at. Thanks for the conversation.

Leave a Reply