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!
I don’t think atheism is silly per se. I think that people who support the view have their own reasons… they should not necessarily be viewed as “wrong” because of their lack of understanding, experience or worldview…. I know some people like that and I sympathize not with their conclusions but more so with their opinions…I’m no judge and nobody should be…
Hi Vincent
The challenge here is a tight definition of Atheism which I think you already alluded to. Based on Atheism being a universe by chance alone then his idea works reasonable well. The answer to this is the multiverse which has its own problems.
The Truth: The Mathematical Proof of The One True God: The Holy Trinity.
Within this text is The Proof, beyond an ounce of doubt, by way of the language of the Universe: Mathematics, that The Triune God is The One True God and The Holy Bible is His Word.
https://trinitythetruth.github.io/ << Review and Confirm Proof Here. or view attached file.
Atheism does not equal chance alone. There are other philosophical perspectives besides multiversism that don’t include a personal deity and don’t think that things just happened by chance. The meta-issue here is that these are all unverifiable speculations anyway. It is wrong to think that we can really know the real background nature and cause of our universe. All our philosophies and religions are cultural narratives that try to reconcile what we can know with stories about all that we can’t.
Hi aleta
What are the mechanisms other than chance?
1: Bertuzzi gets atheism wrong. He is arguing against anti-theism. But an atheist need not be anti-theist. Many atheists are actually agnostic on the god question.
2: Bertuzzi uses the argument that the universe is orderly and fine tuned for life. At most, that’s an argument for deism. In particular, it isn’t a good argument for theism.
3: Yes, we do find order in the universe. But the order that we find is different from the order that Aristotle found, and different from the order described in Genesis 1. To me, this suggests that the order comes from us. And if it comes from us, it isn’t an argument for a deity.
4: I’m not at all convinced by the fine tuning argument. Is reality fine tuned to allow human life? Or is life fine tuned to fit the universe it finds itself in? I don’t think we can distinguish between those. And the theory of evolution is a pretty good explanation for the latter.
kingiyk,
I’m not seeing anything there that would count as a proof of God.
It’s been a long time since I’ve written about any of this, but I’ll give it a try.
When I wrote, “There are other philosophical perspectives besides multiversism that don’t include a personal deity and don’t think that things just happened by chance,” colewd wrote, “What are the mechanisms other than chance?
Well first, I don’t think chance can be considered a “mechanism”. Whatever chance is, it isn’t a cause. It’s a description of either our lack of knowledge of a cause, or of, although this is hard to imagine, something happening without a cause. (And I’m pretty conversant with the probabalistic paradoxes of quantum mechanics in this regards.)
But I’d like to respond to the meta-issue that I mentioned after the part that colewd quoted:
“The meta-issue here is that these are all unverifiable speculations anyway. It is wrong to think that we can really know the real background nature and cause of our universe. All our philosophies and religions are cultural narratives that try to reconcile what we can know with stories about all that we can’t.”
More specifically, I think it is unfounded speculation to think that our human notions of law, chance, or intention apply to the actual nature and cause of the universe. Why do we think that might be knowledge accessible to us? Why do we think the universe has a nature analogous to ours and our understanding of how and why things happen in the world? I don’t think there is any reason to think that is the case.
It is rather, I think, that at some point our human ability to understand the world as we see it gets transformed into speculative and unverifiable stories about the whys and hows about the world that are epistemologically beyond our comprehension.
FWIW, I happen to have a favorite philosophy–a favorite story–based roughly on Taoism and other Eastern philosophies, and attached very speculatively to Quantum Mechanics, which I used to discuss at Uncommon Descent when it was still alive. I had fun discussing it, but had little success in getting anyone interested in anything but the Western perspective that dominates our culturally-based philosophies.
To kingiyk: all that stuff about roots number and the digits adding to to a number divisible by 3, etc, can all be algebraically proven as just mathematical facts. That “mathematical proof” site is just about the weakest thing of that sort I’ve ever seen. If anything here is silly, it’s that site and things like it.
I worry that rapid changes in habitat, deforestation, climate change bringing weather extremes, or some dispute leading to nuclear conflagration, will confirm the hypothesis that species are vulnerable due to being closely matched to environments. Biological selection isn’t fast enough to cope. Sorry to repeat my gloomy message. I do hope I’m wrong and that a miracle happens.
A lot follows from the assumption that our observable universe has fixed, measurable properties but I agree there is no reason to expect humans to have sufficient ability to find the “why” of it all.
To kingiyk: That rivals the time cube in silliness
And it’s not even correct: the ‘digital root’ of lots of numbers is NOT 3,6,9.
Jeeeez
Neil Rickert,
He is arguing against the origin of the universe being a random event.
its an argument for intelligent creation. I agree other evidence is required to bridge the a specific theistic belief.
How is it different than Aristotle or Genesis 1?
We can easily distinguish as the theory of evolution or universal common descent has very little empirical support with what we are seeing from the latest gene data.
I’ll repeat: it is a huge anthropomorphism to think that random event or intelligent creation are the only two options; and to think that we can extrapolate from what we know of how humans experience the world to what the true nature of the universe is.
Militant agnosticism–I don’t know and you don’t know either– is the reasonable position: humility about the limits to our knowledge.
That’s not a claim of atheism.
Genesis 1 describes a flat earth with a domed ceiling. Aristotle would have seen a geocentric solar system. We see a heliocentric solar system.
We? You and who else, Bill? You cannot, as clearly demonstrated by your many ignorant comments at Peaceful Science, grasp the simplest concepts or argue the most basic math or logic.
The consilience piling up from the elucidation and comparison of genetic sequences is consistently confirming evolutionary biology and the overarching relatedness of all known life.
Alan Fox,
The question of deer common ancestry went 1000 replies. How in the world would this happen if the most obvious of all shared ancestry required more than a few comments. What model do you think best supports how reproduction generates the unique novel genes we see in different species?
All you have is this bald assertion?
Neil Rickert,
What is the atheist claim?
Atheists do not make any general claim about the origin of the universe. They may have varying opinions, but those opinions are not a claim of atheism.
My own view: We know only that the universe exists. We don’t know anything about its origin.
No.
And you, with your sealioning, failed to make a point.
The point that no one could propose a model to solve was differences in genes and chromosomes. Dramatic differences that do not follow the standard tree despite all animals being from the same genus.
More unsupported vague claims or can we move on 🙂
Imagine a universe with a near-infinity of semi-independent variables, all operating under the constraints of entropy resulting in a near-infinity of feedback loops. Imagine that this continuing condition produces a limited intelligence inherently inclined to see patterns – whether there or not. Finally, imagine this intelligence superimposing this inclination to see patterns onto the universe, trying to determine what it all “means”. This intuitive “understanding” of the universe almost demands the invention of gods – a sort of Occam’s Razor explanation of why the water so exactly fits into the puddle.
I read that philosophy is like looking for a black cat in an unlighted dark room, theology is looking for the black cat in the unlighted dark room and shouting “eureka, I found it!”, and science is looking for that cat in that room, but using a flashlight. The flashlight doesn’t illuminate much, so science will generally be crippled in the search, but the theists never fail.
😉
Sealioning is not an effective strategy, in my view, though strategy may be an exaggeration in your case, Bill. As Kairosfocus (late of Uncommon Descent) was wont to remark: “every tub must stand on its own bottom”.
If you want to revisit the subject of chromosome number variation in the Muntjak deer clade, I suggest you publish a post. Taking account of recent studies explaining how chromosome fusion is the main element in number change would be good.
Move on? Bill, you have never made a successful argument about any scientific subject. And I am an optimist, prepared to be surprised. By all means, move on to trying to support a claim of your own. Do you have one that you think you can support using logical arguments, supported by experiments, facts and data, perhaps with a hypothesis set out in a mathematics formula? I’m 74, you know. I don’t want to rush you but…
Vincent, apologies for de-railing your thread. I haven’t the patience for watching videos so excuse me if I’m missing your point.
Personal, private belief is sacrosanct. I wouldn’t presume to impose my beliefs on others and I hope others do the same for me.
From the OP, a former atheist remarks:
And I decided that if a theory is completely inapplicable, then I can’t believe it.
That’s my problem with God (gods in all their rich diversity). Inapplicable.
Alan Fox,
This has been litigated over 1000 posts. You were the one who started this discussion with your bald assertion. So far that’s where we are and given history that is where we will probably end.
How would you know Alan? Alan you rarely engage in details but simply bald assertions as evidenced by your comments above. I am ok with that just don’t pretend your depth of understanding is more the trivial or perhaps your willingness to discuss the details of any technical subject.
Certainly not to old to shift a burden :-). I will be 70 soon.
Well, make sure you enjoy it.
Reminder to Bill that “the question of deer common ancestry went 1000 replies” was your way of disputing common ancestry. Yet when I look for recent scientific papers on Muntjak deer chromosome fusion, I am overwhelmed by the amount of information that has accrued in the last few years.
Tell me what is there in any of those papers that doesn’t support common descent? I know you too well, Bill, to expect that will happen. Did you even look at the 2021 paper? I doubt it.
If anyone is curious, the discussion on Muntjak deer chromosome number variance took place at Peaceful Science.
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-all-deer-share-a-common-ancestor/16040
Alan Fox,
Of course I looked at the papers. They are from my University BTW.
So we see from the paper the mechanism is unknown. Until this is known there no way to show that there is a reproductive relationship.
The more challenging problem is the variation in gene types between the deer species.
Common descent is simply inferred here as a working hypothesis. The real question is if methodological naturalism is a science stopper in this case as it leads to an inference that may be false.
You have a university? 🧐😱
Bill, whilst I can use web search to tie your quote to Mudd et al, you should make an effort to cite your own source. There’s absolutely nothing in that paper that supports a claim that “irreducible complexity” lurks anywhere within that paper, as Rumraket has told you multiple times in the Peaceful Science thread. Now I’m going to insist you stop sealioning in this thread. Put up an opening post on “irreducible complexity” if you must but stop spamming this thread.
Atheists are in self-denial. They don’t want to admit it. Who cares?
I don’t? They don’t deserve to be called agnostics for what I care…
No one should be forced to believe and that is the end of the discussion…
Alan Fox,
Hi Alan
Sorry for not citing the article. Page 2 bottom left side is where the quote comes from.
https://rdcu.be/d6Pjg
colewd,
Apology accepted. Again I say, I’m not closing down a discussion on “irreducible complexity” as it allegedly pertains to muntjac deer chromosome number variation. I’m saying, if you want to have yet another argument about it, put it in a new opening post. And if there are any readers left who would like to try their hand at an OP, you are welcome. Just let me know via a comment in moderation issues or via private message if you need help setting it up. Email to alanfox@free.fr will also find me.
Alan Fox,
Hi Alan
I appreciate the civil reply. Irreducible complexity is not the issue. It is the limitation of population genetics models.
While the chromosome count variation in deer is hard to explain the gene type variation is even more challenging.
I think the UC Berkeley group admitting that there is no known mechanism yet to explain the observed variation is a big step in getting evolutionary theory out of the ideology business.
Hi everyone,
I’ve been rather busy during the past few days. However, I would like to second Alan’s suggestion that any further discussion of chromosomal fusion in muntjack deer should be conducted on another thread.
There has been some discussion of atheism on this thread, which some commenters have equated with the claim that the universe arose by chance. I think that’s a very strange definition. The last time I looked in the dictionary, atheism was defined as a rejection of theism. Which brings me to the question: what is theism? I’d like to repost a paragraph from my OP, in which I discuss this matter in my reply to Cameron Bertuzzi:
How would readers define theism? Thoughts?
I’m not very interested in academic definitions of god.
In common usage, god is a conscious entity having emotions, motives, plans. And is not outside time.
There are potential contradictions in all this.
A god that lacks consciousness and is outside time seems to me to be just an alternate way of saying, physics.
vjtorley,
Theism is a category of beliefs not a specific belief in itself. The general category believes we are in a created universe. Atheism falls into the same boat as a category of beliefs. The general category does not believe in a creator. Until you become more specific comparison is difficult.
I do think that Atheists have a problem with their claims of “lack of belief” as this leaves our origins unexplained and defaults to explaining things without cause. If there is no claimed cause then their burden is to explain our universe without a cause. Its existence becomes a brut fact and they end up with a worldview based on circular reasoning.
Bill’s comment illustrates how hard it is to put yourself in someone else’s shoes. I especially like the “default” projection.
I do not feel any compulsion to explain anything. I do not require explanations.
I do not think unidentified aerial phenomena are alien spaceships, and I don’t think god is a humanlike entity. But I’m okay with not knowing.
I enjoyed that as well. When we simply do not know something, for atheists the default is to admit that it’s not known. The default for Bill is to confect, out of sheer ignorance, some non-explanatory “explanation” and consider that the default.
I wish I could post a ‘Jesus ‘n’ Mo’ cartoon here, where Jesus is reading someone on Reddit comparing religion to masturbation. The observation is that masturbation satisfies the drive to reproduce without actually reproducing, and religion satisfies the drive to understand without actually understanding anything! For most people, the drive to understand is strong enough so when something is not explained, they can simply make stuff up and call that process the default.
This works because, as has been observed since forever, it is FAR easier to fool someone, than it is to get them to realize they’ve been fooled. The bullshit sets up housekeeping in the brain, and induces its victims to build impressive religions and churches to it.
I haven’t been able to fix uploads, I’m afraid. I can’t access the server, even though Lizzie has given me login info. I’ll try emailing her again. It also affects the automatic backups. 🥹
Flint,
In this case someone claims to not know and turns and claims to know someone’s position is wrong. How do you know when someone’s position is wrong?
Flint writes, ” and religion satisfies the drive to understand without actually understanding anything! For most people, the drive to understand is strong enough so when something is not explained, they can simply make stuff up and call that process the default.”
Yep. And the default gets so embedded in culture that people growing up see it as the only possible truth.
Where did I say your position was wrong? Did I not describe it accurately? I would say your “default” of one (out of many) imaginary gods is unsupportable and irrational, but not necessarily wrong. For you (but not for an atheist, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Buddhist, etc.) it’s so obviously correct you regard it as the default! You might ponder the notion that religious faiths are generally held by those raised within those faiths, and if you’d been born in India to Hindu parents, surrounded by Hindu believers and structures and Hindu religious assumptions built into the warp and woof of your language, your education, your literature etc. you’d likely consider that faith the “default” and all others wrong, misguided, ignorant, or whatnot.
I amplify this in my subsequent response to Bill.
Flint,
Not at all.
People can come to faith based on evidence. The worldview based on I don’t know is personal yet you are projecting that others don’t know. You have no way of accessing this until you have investigated the alternatives. Lee Strobel, the author of a Case for Christ, tried to falsify Christianity and failed.