Of Atheism and False Advertising
On Jan. 6 some 800 British red “bendy” buses carried the sign: “There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
The Atheist Bus Campaign organizer, a young comedienne named Ariane Sherine, took exception last June to several London buses swathed with biblical quotes, placed by Christian fundamentalists.
Her idea to fund a few challenge ads took off; donors sent in $200,000 in two days. Ms. Sherine was joined by Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, a leading British atheist and author of “The God Delusion.”
He predicted anger from believers. “They have to take offense, it is the only weapons they’ve got,” Mr. Dawkins said as the first bus rolled through the streets of London. “They’ve got no arguments.”
But the response by most faith leaders isn’t quite what was expected.
Religious institutes, church pastors, and divinity school professors have not treated the ads with Old Testament wrath, but with a relatively open mind and even embrace of so important an issue.
“Many people simply never think about God or religion as a serious question, and if this prods them a little bit, then that’s great,” says the Rev. Stephen Wang, of the Westminster diocese of the Roman Catholic church.
More. It turns out that religious folk are more open minded and tolerant than the atheists in this story, who are the ones bothered by the very sight of a contrary point of view in public. Talk about irony.
I also found this bit amusing:
Much of the campaign’s initial buzz centered on the assertion that God “probably” doesn’t exist. Does this suggest a hedging of bets – a move past atheist dogma? Only partly.
Some organizers wanted a flat “there is no God” statement. Dawkins favored an “almost certainly no God” wording. But Ms. Sherine says that British advertising officials advised that a phrase less absolute and not subject to proof would ensure the ad did not run afoul of the advertising standards authority.
(HT: Ross Douthat)
Comments are closed.
So there “probably” is no God, huh. To paraphrase Pascal, it’s a hell of a thing to be wrong about.
This is how good Christians should respond to persecution. William Dohohue-style bloviating plays right into the hands of the persecutors.
What persecution?
I had the same thought. Smug disdain is not persecution.
So there “probably” is no God, huh. To paraphrase Pascal, it’s a hell of a thing to be wrong about.
Suppose one takes Pascal’s Wager seriously and say, “I am not sure, but I will bet for, rather than against, the existence of God.” How does that help you choose between being a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Zoroastrian, or a Bahá’í? Actually, how does Pascal’s Wager help you to decide whether you should be a monotheist or a polytheist? And if you decide to be a monotheist and a Christian, how does it help you to decide whether to be a Catholic, or a Baptist, or a Lutheran?
One would expect believers to regard ad campaigns by nonbelievers serenely. It seems to me that getting angry probably indicates you are insecure in your own faith and find it threatening to your own fragile beliefs that others disagree.
I didn’t see any ‘anger’ expressed on the thread David. I took it as a ‘punny’ reference (‘a hell of a thing’, indeed).
John Henry,
I see no anger here (so far) either. But frequently, I think the reaction to atheists, and especially to proselytizing atheists, is hostility and anger. People say that atheism is becoming fashionable, but although there has been a spate of popular books on atheism, I think most people who are atheists or agnostics don’t advertise the fact.
We have now elected a black man president. I wonder if it would be possible for an avowed atheist to win the presidency. I doubt it.
A Google search comes up with one and only one atheist in Congress — Pete Stark, Democrat, of California.
Theists are atheists in regards to all gods but theirs. Theism only matters to me insofar as the dangers it poses are concerned. Whether it’s killing unbelievers or lesser things such as keeping gay people from equality. That Mormons wear funky undergarments leaves me cold, that they pump millions into the cause against gays, that is a different matter. Same goes for the Catholic hierarchy, if there weren’t campaigns against equality, not to mention organized sex abuse, why would anyone care about their dogmas and customs ? To try and argue with believers is a waste of time.
That atheists are “immoral” is another of the American idiocies (such as “socialism is evil”). All “good deeds” can be performed without any “supernatural” background, if anything that hinders them due to persecution of “unbelievers” (the same goes for other totalitarian ideologies, e.g. Communism – the reason it didn’t like religion was that they didn’t like competition).
If there has to be a religion, Americans should be (today’s) Episcopalians. Better taste, none of the hysteria :)
As far as “hell” is concerned – a heaven filled with conservative Catholics/Evangelicals/Mormons – how is that not hell ? :-)
I remember when I decided to be Christian … it was the day I realized that I was intellectually convinced that creation is rational. Atheism claims that the essence and origins of reality are chaos, blind chance, and other forces of irrationality. While theism (explicitly, Christianity) names “Logos” ( the Greek term for the reason which pervades the Universe) as the creating force.
I am not mad at atheists for their ad campaign. I just think “probably” is an extremely crummy argument.
1. Even if it’s true, according to Pascal (and the average guy, who tends to be conservative when betting on things like the possibility of damnation) “probably” isn’t a good enough reason to be an atheist.
2. There’s no objective means of determining the supposed “probability.” The average mathematician will tell you there is probably a God. The average biologist will tell you, probably not. They are both scientists, evaluating empirical evidence. Atheism and theism both require a leap of faith.
Atheism and theism both require a leap of faith.
Lizzy,
The point I was trying to make is that there are a great many decisions (or leaps) to be made after concluding you can’t accept atheism, and Pascal’s Wager doesn’t help. If the choice were between being a Catholic and an atheist, Pascal’s Wager might be compelling. But once you are in the non-atheist camp, you may believe there is a God (or gods), but you don’t know what to believe about Him (or them).
If you are not in the atheist camp, and have decided that there is a God and that you should get to know God, then you should pursue God. Since man is obviously communal in nature, it make sense to pursue god in a communal fashion, with a group of fellow believers. If you don’t feel particularly compelled to one tradition or another, then pick the one closest to you house and see if they got a decent beginners program.
Since you do seem to be hanging out at a catholic blog site, and were raised catholic …. I would be quite remiss to not give a hearty three cheers for in depth catholic tradition – RCIA, a year or two taking things seriously, and then the local lay ministry program is quite enlightening and satisfying.
We have now elected a black man president. I wonder if it would be possible for an avowed atheist to win the presidency. I doubt it.
Probably not. I, for one, would not vote for someone with so tenuous a grasp on reality.
Jeremy,
Thanks for your response. I wasn’t so much making a personal statement about the difficulty of knowing what to believe as commenting on the inadequacy of Pascal’s Wager, but of course it is my personal feeling as well.
I live in Manhattan, and the closest community of believers to my house (basically two doors down) is Congregation Emunath Israel and “Orthodox Shul, in the Misnagdisher (Nusach Ashkenaz) tradition.”
During the time of my formal Catholic education (1950s to mid-1960s), the Catholic Church was “verus Israel,” the true Israel, because the Jews had rejected Jesus, and the Church carried on where God’s Chosen People had so disasterously faltered. (“He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him. But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God.”) Now that interpretation seems to be undergoing revision, but it still is an impediment to the idea of converting to Judaism.
Well, it seems obvious that you should do something. In fact, you can not accept Pascal’s wager without doing something. Pascal’s wager requires that you act. Faith is not a blind belief, faith is an action based on trust. If you do not trust God, then you need to start there. You can ask God to give you faith. You can also go to your local Synagogue, or Church, or Mosque, and ask them if they can offer some direction.
Of course, Catholic is preferable, but if you do not trust your Catholic upbringing, and aren’t willing to engage on that level, then you should engage on a different level. Sitting still is rejecting God, without the honesty atheism.
I would also recommend the ‘Four Cardinal Virtues’ by Josef Pieper. I find his understanding of the basics necessary to practice virtue applicable to our discussion.
Sorry,
Jessie = Jeremy, I forgot to switch the name.
“But the response by most faith leaders isn’t quite what was expected.”
Meanwhile, actual believers responces were slightly different- one guy refused to drive the bus, there have been claims that this is wrong and atheism leads to evil… oh, I forget that only the authorities opinions count.
“More. It turns out that religious folk are more open minded and tolerant than the atheists in this story, who are the ones bothered by the very sight of a contrary point of view in public. Talk about irony. ”
It think the threat of burning in hell which the atheist ads were responding to is significantly less tolerant.
“Much of the campaign’s initial buzz centered on the assertion that God “probably” doesn’t exist. Does this suggest a hedging of bets – a move past atheist dogma? Only partly.
Some organizers wanted a flat “there is no God” statement. Dawkins favored an “almost certainly no God” wording. But Ms. Sherine says that British advertising officials advised that a phrase less absolute and not subject to proof would ensure the ad did not run afoul of the advertising standards authority. ”
England- land of the libel laws :)
“We have now elected a black man president. I wonder if it would be possible for an avowed atheist to win the presidency. I doubt it.”
Gays are liked better. And gays LOST in CA :(
“Atheism claims that the essence and origins of reality are chaos, blind chance, and other forces of irrationality.”
For the love of the GEoM, we are NOT all Epicureans! Science has come a long way in the past 2300 years you know.
Look at an ant. From such simple rules comes great complexity. There is no rulemaker, no designer, no architect… but termite mounds are built in such a way they have air conditioning.
From the simple and from chaos order grows.
“the Greek term for the reason which pervades the Universe) as the creating force. ”
Reason is based on logic which breaks down at the quantum level. It isn’t all that pervasive.
“1. Even if it’s true, according to Pascal (and the average guy, who tends to be conservative when betting on things like the possibility of damnation) “probably” isn’t a good enough reason to be an atheist. ”
Congradulations! You picked the wrong religion. Opps.
“2. There’s no objective means of determining the supposed “probability.” The average mathematician will tell you there is probably a God. The average biologist will tell you, probably not. They are both scientists, evaluating empirical evidence. Atheism and theism both require a leap of faith.”
Math is a science? Since when?
They don’t both require a leap of faith- only on position require faith if there are two positions.
“Since man is obviously communal in nature, it make sense to pursue god in a communal fashion, with a group of fellow believers.”
Must… resist… communist party… reference.
“If you don’t feel particularly compelled to one tradition or another, then pick the one closest to you house and see if they got a decent beginners program. ”
The One TRUE faith is the one that requires the least petrol expenditure. This is priceless.
“Faith is not a blind belief, faith is an action based on trust. ”
Actually, that is an alternate definition, not a requirement.
“If you do not trust God, then you need to start there.”
Atheists don’t believe God exists. If he exists, they might trust him- depends on his track record.
“Of course, Catholic is preferable, but if you do not trust your Catholic upbringing, and aren’t willing to engage on that level, then you should engage on a different level. Sitting still is rejecting God, without the honesty atheism.”
Catholics aren’t great, but they stopped commiting large scale atrocities a long time ago. The Protestants are learning to catch up.
I’m glad you admit that from the atheist viewpoint, the Universe is essentially illogical, breaking down at the quantum level. In one corner, there is faith and reason, in the other atheism and irrationality.
Mathematics has been considered a science since antiquity. Your reference to termite mounds is puzzling. Yes, termite mounds are very complex, and yes, they have designers: ants.
The dominant movement in both mathematics and physics associates simplicity with beauty and beauty with truth: the simpler “more elegant” the formula, the more likely it is to be true.
In fact, many of them speculate that there is a single formula which explains and upholds the entire Universe. (The Greeks called that unknown formula “logos” Christians call “logos” Jesus)
There is, as a matter a fact, a dogma of the 4th century Lateran Council which declares that God is an “absolute simplicity.”
I have no idea what you’re trying to say with this:
“only on[e] position require[s] faith if there are two positions.”
Re: Faith and reason – and yes, this is unfair. I give you Catholic Minority Report, which I, together with the Onion, sometimes visit. Regarding the Vatican calling Jewish demands excessive, the blog has this to say:
“Once again, the ostensibly derogatory perfidious has been removed from the prayer. The assembly of Italian Rabbis (bigger than a breadbox?) is complaining about being prayed for, period. Too bad, we can pray for whoever we want. Truth is so can they and they do. But let’s not go down this road again.”
Yes, if only the current pope could lock the Jews into a ghetto again like a predecessor did. And, to mock the presumed scarcity of Jews is rather vile, given the Holocaust.
( It turns out that religious folk are more open minded and tolerant than the atheists in this story, who are the ones bothered by the very sight of a contrary point of view in public. Talk about irony.)
They never dealt with the christians I have talked to.