Definitive evidence for Design!

[tonyrey]

Don’t forget I’m only an unpaid advocate who doesn’t even get a penny - or a cent - or a word of gratitude. :bighanky:

I’m only kidding you! I’m enjoying it tremendously. I can’t believe how easy it is. Why don’t you try it?

It is** possible**

that causes with motivation are in fact unmotivated - given your next point: Not so, for reasons I will elucidate presently…

I’m waiting…

So are motivated causes miracles?

Not necessarily, though they may in certain cases be. In principle, though, they are merely separate category of causes. Both categories may or not apply to the physical world. For example, when I type the word “cause”, there is both the motivated cause of my mind, via my nervous system, willfully moving my fingers and the physical cause of the keys corresponding to the characters “c” “a” “u” “s” and “e” being depressed by the movement of my fingers.

It’s far more economical just to have **one cause **at a time, i.e. your very nervous system.

Though it is certainly baffling to most of us, we still have, in the hands of quantum reality, the smoking gun of our existence. If, at base, reality is fundamentally inexplicable, it’s simply absurd to think that it should unfold into things that have any notion of the principle of explicability, not to mention the ability to explain, to any satisfactory degree, the things it produces!

But then we can’t be sure we’re really explaining things, can we? It makes us feel good but don’t forget we’re in the darkness of eternity :frighten:

What it really suggests to me is that the universe isn’t so reducible as our deterministic materialist brothers like to think. In a very paradoxical way, the more we unwrap the mysteries of our universe, the more wrapping paper we find!

Great minds think alike! I anticipated you with my last remark. Perhaps cracks are appearing in your fortress…

Again it is** possible **

that order is an inscrutable fact - just as God is believed to be an inscrutable fact. Without dimensions within which to arrange things, order is merely an abstract idea

Isn’t that heresy? Are there dimensions in your mind? I’m beginning to think you’re more diabolical than I am…
Perhaps we should swap roles?!

Order cannot be a fact unless there is something to be ordered. Even the notion of the quantum vacuum as the ultimate reality fails because it itself consists of a space emptied of all matter. But, as physics has demonstrated, both time and space have an absolute beginning, prior to which there would have been no space wherein a quantum vacuum might operate. So, being stripped of these fundamental dimensions, the prime fact of existence–that which brings all else into being–can only be one of two things: an abstract object, such as a number or a shape, or an omnipotent, immaterial mind. But abstract objects have no power of causation: nothing is caused by a triangle or the number 4. As the saying goes, “You do the math!”

Let me see. If the physical universe can be explained by equations - which are certainly abstract - is there any need to go further? It’s conceivable that equations are the Ultimate Reality! (I’m not a materialist, you know. Otherwise I would be out of a job!)

“mystery” is the key word. Surely we shall never understand them** all**

? We probably won’t. But, even if we do, it will not answer the most fundamental question of human existence: why does anything exist?

Then we agree. :clapping: There can’t be definitive evidence for Design!

We only need to understand that all of the explanations must be, in principle, understandable.

To tell you the truth - for a change - I don’t see what difference it makes…

Power alone is not enough, I’m afraid. Something seems to be missing…

Indeed something is: omniscience. And yet, within the very notion of omniscience lies that which separates the mind from the machine: we can understand not only raw data but general principles and abstract truths. Thus, we can conceive of God… something no mere mechanism can do.

You disappoint me. I thought you would put something far more important than omniscience or power as your top priority. It just shows how inconsistent theists are…

We can certainly reach many

true conclusions but **all?..**I would never be so audacious as to propose that. We would have to be God! However, we can draw enough true conclusions to deduce the most probable truth.

How would you justify** that **conclusion?

Perhaps, looking on the black side - which is my present task (I’m not at all sure whether it’s pleasant) - nothing is completely novel. Perhaps events are not linear but circular: we may not be on a merry-go-round but a sorry-go-round, never escaping from our dismal fate…

Now that you mention it, life does often leave me feeling inexplicably dizzy…

Success! I’ve achieved my goal! Are you sure you don’t want to change sides? You must be honest - otherwise you’re no different from me…

 

[Sair]

tonyrey

**Keats wrote '“Beauty is truth, truth beauty”. It is true beauty is a great source of inspiration but it is possible beauty exists only in the mind. Wouldn’t that alone account for the great masterpieces? **

It’s true that beauty and truth naturally go together, as Keats argued. There is nothing beautiful about atheism. If there were, it would have been celebrated long ago by a great pantheon of atheist artists. Isn’t the reason that there is nothing beautiful about atheism because there is nothing inherently true about it?

What an interestingly narrow conception of beauty, and of truth.

I can almost immediately think of several instances of things that are true, in the sense that they really do occur, which are very far from being beautiful from any sane human perspective, even if beauty only does exist in the mind. Perhaps to a psychopath it is beautiful to hear the screams of a man being tortured to death, but even if it were not so, that would not bring the man back to life or make his pain inconsequential. It would still be true that he had died in agony. By the same token, I gather that the notion of a godless universe is abhorrent to some; but that tells us nothing about whether or not any being such as a personal god really does exist. Personally, I perceive the natural world as all the more precious, wondrous and beautiful if undesiged and undirected by any deity with a plan. Frankly, if some of the things that occur in this world are intended by God, I find that downright horrifying. Perhaps, in the eyes of some believers, this makes me akin to the aforementioned psychopath.

Since Tonyrey has so helpfully jumped in with a few counterarguments whilst I’ve been away from the forums, I might hang back and see how this thread develops - it appears from the use of my posts from other threads that I’ve already contributed in absentia.

 

[tonyrey]

Since Tonyrey has so helpfully jumped in with a few counterarguments whilst I’ve been away from the forums, I might hang back and see how this thread develops…

Not just yet, you have to give the devil his due, answer my last post to you on the other thread - and allow me to switch sides when needed!

Sair
But that is the whole point - there is no evidence that the universe as we know it bears the mark of an intelligent designer, and ample evidence that it arose naturally, undesigned and unplanned.

What is the evidence that the universe arose naturally, undesigned and unplanned. Like an “insubstantial pageant”? Are we “such stuff as dreams are made on”? - The Tempest

The thing is, if it can be established - which it can…

???

… that conditions such as those giving rise to the universe as we know it can arise naturally, there is no necessity for the assumption of intelligent design.

“if” is the key word. It doesn’t take you very far…

Why assume an extra complex entity when it isn’t necessary? God is surplus to requirements.

A question **and **an assertion based on an “if”…

This ignores every possible and substantial undermining of the notion that the only

explanation for universal order is the front-loading of an intelligently-designed plan. “possible” is another key word. Not much progress so far - with “if” and possible"…

You can’t say that science will never

explain why the universe functions as it does - you can only say that it hasn’t completely explained it yet. You can’t say science will ever explain **why **the universe functions as it does - unless you take a deep breath and make an act of faith…

Probability calculations cited by creationists are inherently flawed, firstly because they overturn the proper functioning of science by assuming the conclusion they are trying to prove…

Alas, that argument could be applied to all research that sets out to validate a theory…

…secondly because they fail to take into account the fact that we don’t know whether the universal constants are mutually dependent, and thus affect the probability calculations related to each.

Ignorance is as convincing as “if” and “possible” - unless there is a superior explanation yet to come…

And even if the universal constants in their present - and friendly - state…

In a notoriously hostile universe…

… are vanishingly improbable by creationist accounts, and leaving aside all possible variables, their improbability still has to be contrasted with the probability of the existence of a vast intelligent entity that has always existed, yet leaves no trace of its interaction with the rest of the universe.

Oh dear! “leaves no trace” is yet another… assumption.

What is the probability that such an entity could remain undemonstrated throughout the history of the universe? High, perhaps, if you have a majority of people conditioned to believe, unquestioningly, that such an entity exists.

With respect, what people believe - or disbelieve - does not alter the facts.

Finally, as I’ve said before, the idea of universal order i

s highly anthropomorphic - we perceive order because we evolved within the universe as it is. If we’d evolved in an entirely different universe, with different constants, and were just dumped here, then - assuming we could survive in the first place - the universe we presently inhabit might well seem nonsensical. Since science is based on the principle that there is universal order science too must be anthropomorphic!

In fact, if one takes seriously the theistic doctrine that we actually belong

in a realm beyond the universe as we know it - the Christian concept of heaven, for example - then perhaps the world we inhabit should not make any sense to us… If one takes seriously the atheistic doctrine that we don’t belong anywhere and exist entirely by Chance the world we inhabit does not make any sense whatsoever.

In a word all is absurd. (A memorable mantra. ) In a word all is absurd…

Reason is not an aberration - nor are persons** illusions**… Are they?

 

[tonyrey]

Frankly, if some of the things that occur in this world are intended by God, I find that downright horrifying. Perhaps, in the eyes of some believers, this makes me akin to the aforementioned psychopath.

Not a psychopath but a naturopath on the warpath!

 

[Sair]

Not a psychopath but a naturopath on the warpath!

Somebody has to be - although I think ‘naturalist’, rather than ‘naturopath’, is the correct term - the former tends to be concerned with what’s known as ‘alternative’ medicine…which, as long as it doesn’t include homeopathy, retains a reasonable level of credibility!

 

[Sair]

Not just yet, you have to give the devil his due, answer my last post to you on the other thread - and allow me to switch sides when needed!

I did, didn’t I? - allow you to switch sides, that is…

What is the evidence that the universe arose naturally, undesigned and unplanned. Like an “insubstantial pageant”? Are we “such stuff as dreams are made on”?

Since the very idea that the universe must have been planned at all arises from the application to the rest of nature of the human propensity to make plans and impart intention to unintentional occurrences, then the onus is on creationists (whether of an ID stripe or otherwise) to define exactly why they consider that the universe could not have arisen naturally. Physicists have identified the existence of the quantum vacuum, the state of being that has all the potential required to give rise to a universe; independently, biologists have discovered the kinds of conditions that could give rise to life. In neither of these has there been anything identifiable as the signature of a conscious, intentional designer.

You can’t say science will ever explain whythe universe functions as it does - unless you take a deep breath and make an act of faith…

You’re right - I can’t say that science has or ever will, ultimately, explain why the universe exists, why it works one way and not another way. I can only say that, in light of my experience and that of others I encounter, that scientific explanations make far more sense than religious ones. However, to assert that science will never fully explain reality, that it’s already necessary to look beyond science for the answers to such deep questions as why the universe exists, is to take that very leap of faith you say I must take. You have already abandoned the scientific endeavour if you’re looking to the ‘supernatural’ (whatever that may be) for answers.

Alas, that argument could be applied to all research that sets out to validate a theory…

Not quite - most scientific research sets out to invalidate a theory. When it doesn’t, that strengthens the theory in question.

Ignorance is as convincing as “if” and “possible” - unless there is a superior explanation yet to come…

Then why does Christianity advocate that we subsist in ignorance and merely trust God?

In a notoriously hostile universe…

…created, according to theists, by a notoriously benevolent deity…

Oh dear! “leaves no trace” is yet another… assumption.

Go on, then - show some traces. And take care to choose only traces that can only be explained by recourse to divine intervention.

With respect, what people believe - or disbelieve - does not alter the facts.

I’m well aware of this. The point of what I wrote here was if you have people convinced already that what they are seeing is evidence of God, they will believe it to be evidence of God, regardless of any and all possible alternative explanations.

Since science is based on the principle that there is universal order science too must be anthropomorphic!

Of course. The whole point being that, as I said, we evolved within this universe - that being the case, science as we perform it is specifically the effort to understand this universe, in such a way as we, specifically, can comprehend it. If we’re not meant to understand it, if we’re meant to simply place our faith in a higher power, why even bother with science in the first place? Human intelligence is a product of the universe we inhabit. It should not be thought extraordinary that we, as a product of this universe, might be attuned to comprehend this universe. If we were genuinely transcendent, we’d be able to do more than guess at the nature of God, right (assuming God exists)?

If one takes seriously the atheistic doctrine that we don’t belong anywhere and exist entirely by Chance the world we inhabit does not make any sense whatsoever.

Nonsense. We evolved in this universe, by natural evolution. The world we inhabit shaped our very existence. It’s only those who suppose we are spirits merely sojourning temporarily in a fallen world who take to heart the idea that we don’t belong here.

 

[tonyrey]

*Not a psychopath but a naturopath on the warpath! *

‘naturopath’ not only rhymes with psychopath it also conveys the idea of a pathological obsession with nature - at the expense of human nature - which motivates the unnatural desire to go on the warpath against those who don’t share your ideology!
“Some body has to be says it all” - both with regard to mindless naturalism and aggressive warmongering a la Dawkins…

 

[tonyrey]

I did, didn’t I? - allow you to switch sides, that is…

Permission required?

What is the evidence that the universe arose naturally, undesigned and unplanned.

Like an “insubstantial pageant”? Are we “such stuff as dreams are made on”?

Since the very idea that the universe must have been planned at all arises from the application to the rest of nature of the human propensity to make plans and impart intention to unintentional occurrences, then the onus is on creationists (whether of an ID stripe or otherwise) to define exactly why they consider that the universe could not have arisen naturally.

Since it is the human propensity to make plans and interpret reality in accordance with their urges and desires the onus is on materialists (whether of a Marxist stripe or otherwise) to define exactly why they consider that the universe has actually arisen “naturally”, i.e. entirely by itself (which is a decidedly **unnatural **occurrence).

Physicists have identified the existence of the quantum vacuum, the state of being that has all the potential required to give rise to a universe; independently, biologists have discovered the kinds of conditions that could give rise to life.

Oh dear! “if” and “can” are now followed by “potential” and “could”… I detect a weakening of the case for physicalism…

In neither of these has there been anything identifiable as the signature of a conscious, intentional designer.

Inanimate matter is not even capable of leaving a signature, let alone an identifiable one!

You can’t say science will ever explain why the universe functions as it does - unless you take a deep breath and make an act of faith…

You’re right - I can’t say that science has or ever will, ultimately, explain why the universe exists, why it works one way and not another way.

At last. The truth is out!

I can only say that, in light of my experience and that of others I encounter, that scientific explanations make far more sense than religious ones.

Do scientific explanations make far more sense in your personal relations with others? Are they treated scientifically all the time?

However, to assert that science will never fully explain reality, that it’s already necessary to look beyond science for the answers to such deep questions as why the universe exists, is to take that very leap of faith you say I must take.

No leap of faith is required by a reasonable person who understands that science does not - and cannot by its very nature answer - such a simple question as “Why?” Do you base all your choices, values, goals and decisions on scientific facts and nothing but scientific facts? That would undoubtedly be a case of pathological naturalism.

You have already abandoned the scientific endeavour if you’re looking to the ‘supernatural’ (whatever that may be) for answers.

Nonsense! There is a time, a place, a reason and a purpose for everything and everyone - except in the naturalist’s scheme of things…

Not quite - most scientific research sets out to invalidate a theory. When it doesn’t, that strengthens the theory in question.

Falsification has to be supplemented by verification; otherwise it is unreliable.

Ignorance is as convincing as “if” and “possible” - unless there is a superior explanation yet to come…

Then why does Christianity advocate that we subsist in ignorance and merely trust God?

It doesn’t - except in some people’s imagination. “Seek and you shall find…”

In a notoriously hostile universe…

…created, according to theists, by a notoriously benevolent deity…

In a notoriously hostile universe with the universal constants in their present - and friendly - state! To consider the immense value of your life to be the product of a set of totally indifferent events is rather inconsequential but highly congenial and convenient…

Oh dear! “leaves no trace” is yet another… assumption.

Go on, then - show some traces. And take care to choose only traces that can only be explained by recourse to divine intervention.

“traces” is a gross understatement. David Hume and many other atheists have conceded there is evidence of purpose on every side. The entire system is rational rather than chaotic, incoherent, unreliable, unpredictable and unintelligible.

 

[tonyrey]

The point of what I wrote here was if you have people convinced already that what they are seeing is evidence of God, they will believe it to be evidence of God, regardless of any and all possible alternative explanations.

Of course. The whole point being that, as I said, we evolved within this universe - that being the case, science as we perform it is specifically the effort to understand this universe, in such a way as we, specifically, can comprehend it. You are taking it for granted that:

1. The universe is intelligible (although it need not be).
2. We can understand it (although we need not be able to).

“The whole **point **that we evolved” even points to Design!

If we’re not meant to understand it, if we’re meant to simply place our faith in a higher power, why even bother with science in the first place?

“meant to” also points to Design!
Human intelligence is a product of the universe we inhabit. It should not be thought extraordinary that we, as a product of this universe, might be attuned to comprehend this universe.It is not only extraordinary and evolutionary but revolutionary! We don’t need to comprehend anything except that which enables us to survive. And even the capacity to do that is unnecessary. As King Lear said,

“O reason not the need! Our basest beggars
Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
Allow not nature more than nature needs,
Man’s life is as cheap as beast’s.”

Life itself is an incredible luxury that should never be taken for granted. To think it is the inevitable consequence of random events is sheer nonsense. And as for the power to comprehend the universe Pascal was far more realistic. He recognised its significance:

"Man is only a reed, the most frail of nature, but a reed that thinks. It is not the case that the whole universe is armed to annihilate him; a vapor, a drop of water is enough to kill him.

However, even when the universe would crush him, man would be, nevertheless, ever more noble than that which kills him, because he knows about death, and the superiority that the universe has over him, while the universe knows nothing."

It is the power of reason that is at the root of all human achievements. There is no room for emotion in science, logic or technology. Emotion is a vital and fundamental element in art, music, philosophy and literature but without reason it is dangerous and destructive. Yet even though emotion often endangers survival life is not worth living without it. From every point of view personal existence is an immensely precious gift that is the antithesis of an insignificant dot.

If we were genuinely transcendent, we’d be able to do more than guess at the nature of God, right (assuming God exists)?

It doesn’t take much thought to realise what is worthwhile…

If one takes seriously the atheistic doctrine that we don’t belong anywhere and exist entirely by Chance the world we inhabit does not make any sense whatsoever.
Nonsense. We evolved in this universe, by natural evolution.

The nonsense is the negative notion that we just happened to emerge from the meaningless mud for no reason or purpose whatsoever.

The world we inhabit shaped our very existence.

If it shaped our very existence we are completely helpless puppets.

It’s only those who suppose we are spirits merely sojourning temporarily in a fallen world who take to heart the idea that we don’t belong here.

A crude distortion of the fact that our home is on this planet - of which we are the stewards who have failed to preserve its pristine beauty and destroyed not only the lives of other persons but countless members of other species and their habitat. It is a false dilemma that it is a case of either this world or the next. Our existence is a seamless whole - only compartmentalised by those who are enslaved by their parochial mindset with its horizons terminating within the physical universe - and totally disregarding our interior life…

[/QUOTE]

 

[aragonjohn1]

Huh?

In other words beauty exists…

God bless You Sir

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

By the same token, I gather that the notion of a godless universe is abhorrent to some; but that tells us nothing about whether or not any being such as a personal god really does exist.

Truth is beautiful by any standard, even when it is unpleasant to behold, as when we believe in the truth that Jesus was nailed to a cross for our sins.

Lies are never beautiful. Even the liar has to make every effort to conceal them for what they are … ugly. I admire an atheist like Jean Paul Sartre who does not cringe from admitting in his novels and plays the inherent ugliness of atheism. I also admire his admission, rather late in coming, that the atheism he advanced all his life, at the end of his life he repudiated.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Since Tonyrey has so helpfully jumped in with a few counterarguments whilst I’ve been away from the forums, I might hang back and see how this thread develops - it appears from the use of my posts from other threads that I’ve already contributed in absentia.

This thread is a continuation of the thread from which those posts were taken, and I started the thread with them to give you the opportunity to respond to my retorts since our previous thread was closed before you were able to do so. I still await your responses.

 

[Bradski]

Then you just have a hunch that atheism is true?

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. So asking ‘Is a lack of belief in gods true?’ doesn’t make sense. But you could ask if it’s true that someone is an atheist. And you could ask that atheist if he believes his position to be honestly held.

You could also find an atheist to whom you could ask: ‘Is it true that there are no gods?’

 

[Sair]

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. So asking ‘Is a lack of belief in gods true?’ doesn’t make sense. But you could ask if it’s true that someone is an atheist. And you could ask that atheist if he believes his position to be honestly held.

You could also find an atheist to whom you could ask: ‘Is it true that there are no gods?’

One most certainly can ask these things - one might even find particular atheists who will offer robust answers, backed up with arguments based in science and philosophy.

What you won’t find is an honest atheist who will assert that he or she knows there is no god. Most who identify as atheists - I would wager, anyway - will claim to be agnostic atheists, in the sense that they don’t have knowledge of the existence of any god/s. In the contemporary understanding of atheism, there seems to be a categorisation into ‘weak’ atheists - those who simply profess no belief in god/s - and ‘strong’ atheism - that is, those (like me) who positively believe there is no such thing as a personal god.

Of those in the latter category, theists tend to say we are arrogant, that we can’t make such claims without knowing the whole of reality and other such bombast. The same is true for those who assert a positive belief in god/s, though most theistic believers will not admit as much. Furthermore, you are much more likely to find theists who will roundly declare that they know there is a god, even though - especially if this god is fatuously claimed to be of the inscrutable “being-itself” variety - there is no unequivocal evidence upon which to base such a knowledge claim.

 

[tonyrey]

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

A lack of belief presupposes some belief(s) unless one is a nihilist.

. So asking ‘Is a lack of belief in gods true?’ doesn’t make sense.

It makes sense to ask the reason for your lack of belief in Design - unless you have no reason.

But you could ask if it’s true that someone is an atheist. And you could ask that atheist if he believes his position to be honestly held.

It is not a question of honesty but cogency.

You could also find an atheist to whom you could ask: ‘Is it true that there are no gods?’

It is more to the point - on this thread - to ask the reason(s) you reject Design. “gods” is not the topic.

 

[tonyrey]

… those (like me) who positively believe there is no such thing as a personal god.

Which disproves the frequent claim that atheism is negative!

Of those in the latter category, theists tend to say we are arrogant, that we can’t make such claims without knowing the whole of reality and other such bombast.

Fact or opinion?

The same is true for those who assert a positive belief in god/s, though most theistic believers will not admit as much.

Evidence?

Furthermore, you are much more likely to find theists who will roundly declare that they know there is a god, even though - especially if this god is fatuously claimed to be of the inscrutable “being-itself” variety - there is no unequivocal evidence upon which to base such a knowledge claim.

There are many atheists who will roundly declare that they know there is no god, even though - especially if their substitute is fatuously claimed to be of the inscrutable “reality-itself” variety (such as physical energy) - there is no unequivocal evidence upon which to base such a knowledge claim…

 

[Bradski]

In the contemporary understanding of atheism, there seems to be a categorisation into ‘weak’ atheists - those who simply profess no belief in god/s - and ‘strong’ atheism - that is, those (like me) who positively believe there is no such thing as a personal god.

Of those in the latter category, theists tend to say we are arrogant, that we can’t make such claims without knowing the whole of reality and other such bombast.

Put me in the latter if you could. And arrogance? Well, They’re probably right. At leas tin my case. But I’m working on it.

And Tony…for heaven’s sake…post something substantial can’t ya? Your average words-per-post must be the lowest in Christendom. Cut out the questions and make some positive arguments with which we can get to grips.

The old thread is dead. This is a new one. Make a new start. Enter into a discussion.

 

[tonyrey]

And Tony…for heaven’s sake…post something substantial can’t ya? Your average words-per-post must be the lowest in Christendom. Cut out the questions and make some positive arguments with which we can get to grips.

1. If you don’t answer questions how on earth can there be a discussion?

The old thread is dead. This is a new one. Make a new start. Enter into a discussion.

1. The previous thread is far from dead because many of the arguments by others and myself have been ignored and uncontested…
2. Why waste words if one sentence is enough?
   For example:

It is more to the point to ask the reason(s) you reject Design.

PS It’s good to see you make your request “for heaven’s sake”.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

It is more than a lack of belief in gods; it is a belief there are no gods, a belief for which there is no evidence whatever.

“I want to know God’s thoughts; the rest are details.” Albert Einstein

 

[Sair]

Sair

By the same token, I gather that the notion of a godless universe is abhorrent to some; but that tells us nothing about whether or not any being such as a personal god really does exist.

Truth is beautiful by any standard, even when it is unpleasant to behold, as when we believe in the truth that Jesus was nailed to a cross for our sins.

Truly, one of the most revolting aspects of the Christian faith - the notion of vicarious atonement and the glorification of torture.

Lies are never beautiful. Even the liar has to make every effort to conceal them for what they are … ugly. I admire an atheist like Jean Paul Sartre who does not cringe from admitting in his novels and plays the inherent ugliness of atheism. I also admire his admission, rather late in coming, that the atheism he advanced all his life, at the end of his life he repudiated.

It seems typical of a certain type of believer to assert that the likes of Sartre and Camus ‘understood’ atheism, because they seemed to declare that life is absurd without gods. As though this is some kind of knock-down argument that modern atheists have never contemplated. As for Sartre’s reversion, if it’s fact - and not just the usual tale made up about the deathbed conversions of prominent intellectuals - well, then, I guess he just couldn’t handle the truth…