Vincent Bugliosi Doubts Atheists & Theists

[jayman]

Vincent Bugliosi wrote an article recently for the Huffington Post.

Here's what caught my attention:

Before I get to theism, let me briefly discuss my fine-feathered friends, the atheists, whose arguments have only convinced me of the embarrassing indigence of their thoughts. Atheism is really nothing but a sorry litany of non-sequiturs, e.g., if God existed, why do we have all the evil and horrors in the world? But this presupposes that God is all-good, an obvious non-sequitur. Certain of evolution (that bacteria actually evolved into a Mozart), they then argue that this eliminates God as the creator of the animate world. But this non-sequitur presupposes that God did not create these original life forms, and evolution took over from there. Leading atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris completely embrace the non-sequitur that if they can slay the dragon of organized religion, an unworthy opponent, they have slain God. But the opposite of God is no God, not no religion. Polls have shown that millions of people reject religion but are still firm believers in God. The world's most prominent atheist, Richard Dawkins, actually believes (I am not making this up) that God doesn't exist because the universe is extremely complex, and God, to have created it, would have had to be even more complex, which he finds too "improbable" to believe. You mean you can dispose of God that easily (and vacuously)? My, my.

It may very well be true that there is no God, but atheistic dogma doesn't lead one rationally to this conclusion.

I could be wrong, doesn't it seem like Bugliosi is misrepresenting atheists here?

 

[John Jones]

Vincent Bugliosi wrote an article recently for the Huffington Post.

Here's what caught my attention:




I could be wrong, doesn't it seem like Bugliosi is misrepresenting atheists here?

I'd say so. He's skipped the evidence step.

 

[epix]

Vincent Bugliosi wrote an article recently for the Huffington Post.

Here's what caught my attention:




I could be wrong, doesn't it seem like Bugliosi is misrepresenting atheists here?

Yes, he does. He is using too much of a photoshop so he could find someone willing to make a frame for the picture.

 

[Khan]

He's making assumptions about the assumptions of some atheists, but not all. Yea, atheists are pretty misrepresented by Vincent, but it's usually the "cool" thing to do before trashing on theism. "See, I'm not just another one of them, they're wrong too!"


Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/774/

 

[TraneWreck]

He's taking a group of arguments deployed by atheists in response to certain theists, and pretending as though those arguments are used to reject deism.

The problem of evil is only a problem, as he says, if someone thinks god must be good. Christians think this, so the problem of evil comes up in discussions with them.

The stuff about evolution was just sanctimonious babble. The people he mentioned do not argue as he claims.

 

[Big Les]

Isn't this the chap who rather effectively debunked the JFK conspiracy theories? I suppose we all have our BS threshold.

 

[Crossbow]

It sounds like Vincent Bugliosi is judging all atheists from the few snippets he has read about them in various news articles and such without bothering to delve into the actual details about the subject.

Therefore, while Vincent Bugliosi is wrong about atheists, at least he does have some source material to work with. Therefore, he is being a good bit less wrong than most of the people who critize atheists.

 

[PGH]

I read his Helter Skelter, a good book but I will always have my doubts about his claim that when Charles Manson entered the court room everyone's watch stopped. He mentions it briefly and with no discussion of how it came to be that everyone realized their watch had stopped.

Seeing as I don't believe that Charles Manson has energy siphoning powers I do believe that Mr. Bugliosi esq. lied to make his book more interesting. Sad but more believable than a Mystical Manson.

Also the man allegedly beat a pregnant girlfriend because she wouldn't get an abortion. If Mr. Bugliosi does believe in God he had better be as good a lawyer as he seems to be...

 

[Bikewer]

I subscribe to a number of atheist-oriented "groups" on Facebook, and many of the statements made by (usually younger) members are indeed poorly thought out and even rather silly.
Absurd to ridicule mature atheist thinking on the basis of such statements.

If Mr. Bugliosi would bother to read through some of the threads on this forum he'd witness a more mature and well-thought-out process. (at least, in some...)
It's even more illuminating to listen to Christian apologists of late. The more intellectual of whom have finally had to realize that there is no evidence to support their position and have had to retreat to a "god" position that's utterly unfalsifiable.

 

[Nonpareil]

I could be wrong, doesn't it seem like Bugliosi is misrepresenting atheists here?

Yes.

 

[pgwenthold]

if God existed, why do we have all the evil and horrors in the world?

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Problem of Evil the counter to the claim of a God that is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent?

I have never heard anyone use it as an argument against a god who is an uncaring bastard.

 

[tsig]

Vincent Bugliosi wrote an article recently for the Huffington Post.

Here's what caught my attention:




I could be wrong, doesn't it seem like Bugliosi is misrepresenting atheists here?

No True Atheist would say that.

 

[angrysoba]

Leading atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris completely embrace the non-sequitur that if they can slay the dragon of organized religion, an unworthy opponent, they have slain God. But the opposite of God is no God, not no religion.

In fact, Hitchens simply thinks there is no evidence for God. That's his argument against God. And his argument against religion is that religion is obviously man-made.

As far as the first part is concerned, Hitchens is largely unconcerned about whether people believe in a god or gods or not. Some of the people he likes to quote on the subject were themselves deists.

The important difference with religion is that religious people who do more than simply believe in a creator God also think they know the "mind of God". They also believe they know what God wants and what he/she/it/they want others to do and that is when religion starts interfering with other people's lives (no work on the sabbath, God wouldn't want it! Fish on Fridays! No sex outside of marriage, God says! etc...)

The world's most prominent atheist, Richard Dawkins, actually believes (I am not making this up) that God doesn't exist because the universe is extremely complex, and God, to have created it, would have had to be even more complex, which he finds too "improbable" to believe.

My guess here is that Bugliosi is misrepresenting Dawkins' point. Dawkins is not saying that he can't conceive of a complex God therefore God can't exist, he's saying that if the argument for God is that the Earth is too complicated to exist without a God then the proponents have just set up an infinite regress argument by necessarily positing a more powerful or more complex Creator. In other words the argument from Design has no genuine explanatory value.

 

[Delvo]

Who is this guy and why would anybody be paying attention to whatever he says? I'm sure the guy who runs my local bagel shop has some thoughts on the subject too, but there are no HuffPo articles or JREF threads about him.

 

[John Jones]

Bugliosi is the man who prosecuted the Manson Murders.

He's an interesting guy, and I like reading his stuff, but he's just an interesting guy.

 

[angrysoba]

Who is this guy and why would anybody be paying attention to whatever he says? I'm sure the guy who runs my local bagel shop has some thoughts on the subject too, but there are no HuffPo articles or JREF threads about him.

You could always start one.

 

[drzeus99]

Bugliosi is the man who prosecuted the Manson Murders.

He's an interesting guy, and I like reading his stuff, but he's just an interesting guy.

Kind of agree, but he also thinks a bit too highly of himself.

I also think that the Manson case was clearly the pinnacle of his career, and it's been a slow steady decline for him ever since.

.

 

[Kopji]

I own Dawkins 'The God Delusion' and also Hitchen's 'god is not GREAt'. I've read Harris, and also own an enjoyable book by fellow traveler Dan Barker.

For 'The God Delusion', there is a chapter titled 'Why there almost certainly is no God'. This seems very polite. The argument Dawkins is making with complexity though, is a rebuttal to a Christian apologetic that asserts God is the simplest explanation for the universe. Dawkins is simply showing that such a God is not simple at all, but must be more complex than anything we know. pg 184-189

Leading atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris completely embrace the non-sequitur that if they can slay the dragon of organized religion, an unworthy opponent, they have slain God.

Well, I have Hitchen's book open before me, and I remember Harris fairly well. I would have stated this more like 'if they can slay the dragon of organized religion, faith in God would be an eccentric, if not perfectly innocent, irrelevance'.

It almost goes without argument that without the activity in the world that comes from organized religion, I would not be here; but instead beating Kurt Cameron in chess while sipping cold beer and snacking on banana bread.

 

[Brown]

I like Vince, but he (like most advocates) tends to overstate his case.

Unlike Vince, I do not accept a single definition of what it means to be "atheist." I've encountered several definitions. By some reasonable definitions, there is virtually no distinction between a deist and an atheist and an agnostic and an anti-religionist. By other definitions, there are distinct categories and sub-categories of atheists of varying shades and dimensions (as well as distinct categories and sub-categories of agnostics and virtually any other view one could care to name).

Not all atheists are of the kind that adamantly urge or purport to prove the non-existence of a deity. As I read Dawkins, he does not claim to have proven in any fashion that the Almighty does not exist. Dawkins does argue, however, that the existence of such a Being is highly unlikely based upon what we can and have observed. (Also, if I remember right, Dawkins proposed a seven-degree scale, with one end being absolute theism and the other end being absolute atheism, and he placed himself near, but not at, the absolute atheism end of the scale.)

If one defines an atheist as one who dogmatically believes the non-existence of a Divine Entity is scientifically (or mathematically or logically) proven, then I might be inclined to agree with Vince. There is no conclusive evidence one way or another.

Whether that definition of atheist is apt, however, is a different question.

Even though I don't feel that a belief in God (theism) or disbelief in him (atheism) is unintelligent, I do feel that a certitude about either of these two positions, even a strong belief in them, which is so extremely common, is, perforce, unintelligent. Put another way, since the depth of a belief should be in proportion to the evidence, no sensible person should be dogmatic about whether there is or is not a God.

I find it odd--exceptionally odd--that in the above quote Vince seems to be departing from a conventional prosecutor's understanding of the burden of proof. In a criminal case, the guilt of an accused need not be proven to an absolute certitude; and Vince would, I expect, harshly criticize anyone so unintelligent as to suggest that the guild of the accused must be proven beyond all doubt. In a criminal case, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

What "beyond a reasonable doubt" means is often subject to subjective or poetic explanation, and some explanations are not all that explanatory:

A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon a reason, it is more than a hunch or a general feeling. It can be articulated and expressed to others, and others ought to be able to understand it (even if they do not agree with it). To say that the accused is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" is to say that he is guilty to a "moral certainty," but not to an absolute certainty (since nothing can be shown to an absolute certainty). The degree of certainty must be such that reasonable men would act upon it as a sure thing (as sure a thing can be in human affairs), that their minds would not vacillate about whether the accused should be held responsible or not, that guilt has been established as satisfactorily as anything in human affairs could be proven.

Has the existence of the Almighty been proven beyond all doubt? Perhaps not. But has the existence of the Almighty been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? That's a different question.

One more thing. Vince has used illustrative language like this repeatedly:

What I discovered is so startling that if anyone who reads Divinity of Doubt is not stunned, they would be the type who wouldn't be surprised if they saw a man jump away from his own shadow.

I don’t care for this illustrative language, because I HAVE jumped away from my own shadow, and it did not surprise me at all.

 

[Kopji]

Even though I don't feel that a belief in God (theism) or disbelief in him (atheism) is unintelligent, I do feel that a certitude about either of these two positions, even a strong belief in them, which is so extremely common, is, perforce, unintelligent. Put another way, since the depth of a belief should be in proportion to the evidence, no sensible person should be dogmatic about whether there is or is not a God.

The problem I have with Vince's point of view is that me being an ex-minister and ex-believer, he consigns my decision to walk away as 'unintelligent'. If I am more of an atheist than Dawkins is, I must be. I must reject it all as untrue. The Bible is correct about one thing - it would be wrong for me to sit on the fence, to be lukewarm about my disbelief. I believed a lot, and I don't really feel that I could, with any sense of self respect or honor, say there might just be a God out there somewhere and still act as I do. Vince does not seem to acknowledge that strong atheism might simply be an honorable course, and not a course determined solely by reason and logic.