An affront to faith and thought

Cogito Ergosum

Come on, an advert is an advert, not a place for serious discussion. The Advertising Standards Authority has now ruled that it is no more than an expression of opinion.

You religious people get so sensitive if the idea of religion is questioned. We the non-believers find that much criticism of atheism is ill-informed, patronising, and offensive. So we have little sympathy with your complaints when you are criticised.

Richard Lowe

Can anyone remember the name of that dim pop reporter girl from the Sun who went on Question Time and made a fool of herself? Just thought I’d see if it was on youtube.

The Doctor

Im sorry, but the average level of religious belief in this country is far more of an affront to faith and reason - people who cite the nice bits of the Bible as being deity-backed whilst ignoring the less palatable ones.

Augustus

George Washington once called our Lord "the highest bidder". And few men have enough virtue to withstand him.

Chris

Ill-informed, patronising and offensive I may be, Cogito, but I know how to construct an argument, You plainly don't. An advertisement is as much a place for serious discussion as any other location, and the placers of this ad don't appear to be frivolous in doing so. (Nor, for a wonder, does the blessed Lisa, for a change.) The post you're responding to doesn't appear to me to take the slightest offence, and hence it is not a complaint; it simply addresses the manifest intellectual deficiencies of the advertisement. Criticise away - we can take it! -but do try to attain a higher degree of intellectual coherence, will you? I do hope that's offensive and patronising enough for you.

Alf Tupper

Lisa, do you have to?

You know how this always ends up. The only conclusion any of it offers is that religious observers are polite and misguided; whilst atheists are replete with self and nothing else and are pretty pissed off that they have not yet bullied the whole human race into their terminal dullness.

Dog

"the best the atheists can muster is Christopher Hitchens thumbing his nose at a deity in whom he professes not to believe"

This represents the classic trap laid for atheists - why spend time complaining about something you don't believe in - religion is afterall a matter of personal preference and doesn't hurt anyone.

The problem is that religion isn't held to the same standards. Inherent in it's history is the need to spread the word, and convert new recruits to its inconsistent teachings.

To prevent the further spread of religion - rational atheism needs to challenge religious dogma head-on.

Advertisements for religion are found everywhere, whilst society ties itself in knots trying not to offend these beliefs (and the frequent displays of intolerance and bigotry that goes hand in hand).

The advert from the Hummanists is a welcome counter-point. The reason it says "probably no God" is because scientifically and philosophically this is accurate. It is a far more subtantial basis than the argument for God's existence which is only supported by faith.

Stonewall

God does not need to speak for himself in order for us to discover definitive signs of his will;it is enough to examine the normal course of nature and the consistent tendency of events. i know without needing to hear the voice of the Creator that the stars trace out in space the orbits which His hand has drawn.
Whatever Cogito Ergo Sum may think a No.19 bus just does not do it for me.

Fergus Pickering

Go on, Cogito, most of you atheists are a miserable lot. Hilaire Belloc had your number a long time ago.

John Henderson, an unbeliever,
Has lately lost his joie de vivre
From reading far too many books.
He went about with gloomy looks;
Despair inhabited his breasy
And made the man a perfect pest.

Blakey

Good comment, Lisa.

It is indeed an affront to the thoughtful person, whether believer or not.

The phrase 'There's probably no God' leaves open the possibility that there might be.

A truly 'atheist bus' would carry the legend 'There is no God'. But the existing phrase is a typical fudge.

No doubt a lot of people reading it would think 'well maybe not, but perhaps there might be'.

However, I doubt if encouraging theological reflection was the intention of the advertisers.

The second part, about stop worrying and enjoy yourself etc is simply nonsensical. It suggest that those of us who have doubts might not already be enjoying a worry free life or that those who do believe are living sad, guilt ridden lives.

Cogito,

Surely the advert was meant to provoke serious discussion!

And on your final point, so the fact that one group of people suffer 'ill-informed, patronising and offensive' criticism of their opinions means that it is okay for another group's opinions to be criticised in a similar manner does it?

Go to your nearest bus station, I think you've left your logic on the back seat of the number 42.

Prodicus

The first part of this slogan has been adopted by the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge as a module, whole and entire in itself, of their philosophy first degrees.
Its adoption will enable significant saving of both academic time and cost, and relieve students of the tedium of acquainting themselves with archaic arguments about the source and meaning of life which may have interested philosophers during Classical times and the Renaissance but have no place in modern thought, given that the official philosophy of academe is that life has no meaning. Students are advised that there is no place in academe for deviation from this position.

The use by any student of the archaic terms 'academic enquiry' and 'academic freedom' will be taken to indicate that the individual concerned is probably insufficiently mature to benefit from a university education. He or she will probably not find university life congenial in the longer term and will, therefore, be advised to consider urgently what alternatives may be available.

The second part of the slogan may be found in the welcome letter received by all students on entering our two greatest Universities, along with a catalogue of drinking and dancing establishments in their respective cities.

Allegedly.

Austin Barry

The advert would be significantly more relevant were it to state:

"There's probably no God. Now stop the suicide and honour killings, the beheadings, stonings, crucifixions, misogyny and homophobia and let others stop worrying and enjoy their lives."

Not likely though, is it playmates?

Ian Buss

"We the non-believers find that much criticism of atheism is ill-informed, patronising, and offensive." Hmm, speaking as a "religious type" I must say this might be said to be just as true of the revered writings of Dawkins & co.

As for the bus advert: what's the problem? Surely it is good that these issues are discussed and debated in the public arena.

Herbert Thornton

Austin -

Agreed, it's not likely at all, chum. But even your version tiptoes a bit delicately round the edge.

The real question we should worry about is what would have happened if the advert had read - "There's probably no Allah..."

Nick Kaplan

All you people criticising the use of the word ‘probably’ seem to have seriously misunderstood atheist claims.

Atheists believe that there is no God, they do not claim to know that there is not one (To do so would be arrogance on a level only the religious tend to achieve). The whole point of atheism is that it would be impossible to know either way, but since there is no evidence in favour of the idea of God we should operate on the basis that there is not one, just as we do for all other things for which there is no evidence like invisible giraffes.

The Agnostic on the other hand does not believe one way or the other, he is indifferent.

It is perfectly consistent with the concept of belief that one is uncertain, hence there is nothing inconsistent about saying one believes there is no God (i.e. being an atheist) and saying that such a thing ‘probably’ (rather than definitely) doesn’t exist. Likewise it would be accurate to say ‘there probably are no fairies’ rather than ‘there are no fairies’ since absolute certainty is obviously impossible.

I would agree however that the “now stop worrying” part has little, if anything, to do with the premise which came before it.

Also, I really don’t understand the argument that if you believe there is no God it is strange to argue about its existence (RE- “thumbing his nose at a deity in whom he professes not to believe. Why bother?”). If someone believed in fairies and decided society should be run according to respect for such a belief is it inconsistent to challenge such a person if you don’t believe? Does a lack of belief in Socialism mean we shouldn’t challenge those who do believe in it? Does a lack of belief in atheism mean it is inconsistent to argue with atheists? It seems to me the reverse is true.

hadrian

As a Christian of the most conservative dye ( a Calvinist) I cannot but feel if we live in a country of free speech then we must live with the reality of free speech. I deplore the message of the 'atheist bus' which I think jejeune in the extreme and easily demolished by any consistent logic, but I cannot get too worked up about it's being posted on a bus. Just so long as Christian theistic posters are equally allowed! Unlike the Moslem idea, christians view church and state as two separate if closely entwined spheres and that resides in the very good reason of God's long-suffering to unbelievers- all of us by the state of nature- out of whom He graciously calls His sheep through the Good News.The Gospel's integrity is quite unimpaired and we have nothing to fear from these posters except our own indolence in responding with the Gospel of grace.

Moxon

Others to decide whether or not I am among the faithful. But affronted? Why would that be? The slogan provides a talking point, sadly lacking in mind-your-own-business, secular UK. But if possible, next time could the message be less flaccid, please?

Reg Varney

No, Nick Kaplan, it is precisely the "probably" that makes the bus slogan incoherent.

It is, one hopes, common ground that something rather than nothing exists. Whether Christopher Hitchens likes it or not, greater minds than his have thought it worthwhile to conjecture about the precondition for something to exist rather than nothing. If, as seems sensible, we use the word "deity" to denote that precondition (rather than to denote an old man with a white beard, tooth fairy or other Aunt Sally), then it scarcely makes sense to ask for "evidence" of it. One simply has a choice to presuppose it or not. Philosophical old hat.

As well as being incoherent, the slogan is also just a tad de haut en bas. I was worrying about my life until clever people like Christopher Hitchens told me it was OK to stop. For Chris and his fearless seekers after truth (Polly Toynbee) have been to the frontiers of thought, found the answer (probably), and returned to provide us proles in the bus queue with the reassurance that we need. Thanks, Chris.

salieri

Austin @ 6.28: bravo! Freedom of thought seems to be going the same way as freedom of speech.

And may I respectfully point out to 'Cogito Ergo Sum' the apparently unconscious irony of his chosen pseudonym? The whole point of Cartesian logic - which that soubriquet patently endorses - was that rigorous human rationality is proof in itself of the existence of the one Perfect Being.

Own goal, I'm afraid.

Fergus Pickering

Where, pray, is my post listing all the horrible atheists the last century produced?

John Lea

Further evidence - if any were needed - that people who work in advertising are the devil's spawn.

Fergus Pickering

Lenin, Stalin, Himmler (not sure about Hitler), Pol Pot, Mao, Mao's godawful wife and Jonathan Ross (not sure about Jonathan Ross either but what God could he possibly pray to?)

Mr Green

Would the Adertising Standards Authority have been so blasé about this whole affair had the "advert" stated "There is probably no Prophet....."

By limiting it to "God", it somehow remains purely a Christian thing. If the slogan had used the word Prophet or Bhagavān instead of the more Christian/generic God, I am sure the "ad" would not have even reached the printing press.

Nick Kaplan

Reg Varney; I really do not follow your argument. Are you just defining god as ‘that thing which was needed for the universe to exist’? I don’t think this is a common definition of God, since if this is your definition it is perfectly plausible that God is just the ‘Big Bang.’ Perhaps I have misunderstood, could you clarify?

Steve

I think the slogan is more accurate than many give it credit for. Religious people always seem to underestimate the fact that many followers suffer guilt based on the idea that their deity is not only monitoring everything they do, but also everything they think (thought crime). This in combination with the "threat" of potential hellfire can cause much in the way of inner torment. Religious morality is based not on any objective basis of morality but on the basis of god's power, or his opinion. Of course this morality does not apply to him personally (as he clearly has violated it numerous times), and seems largely based on his temporal whims, which makes religious morality just as relativistic as they claim atheistic morality to be. Bottom line is that religious oppression is frequently hidden in the dark corners of the mind which this slogan is attempting to undermine, justifiably.

Patrick

The reason the Hummanist society had to put the word 'probably' was to concur with the advertising rules, not because they have any doubt about the matter. The phrase 'God doesn't exist' would be a factual statement and break the advertising guidelines. Any one with half a brain knows there is no such thing as a God. Until society grows out of this silly childish wishful thinking stage (thankfully we in the UK are leading the way on this)of its development we are going to have to put up with the deluded, irrational halfwits who choose fantasy over reality.

Fergus Pickering

It's good to know that we in the UK are leading the world in something. Tell me, Patrick, were the deluded, irrational halfwits that got us into our present mess Godbotherers or more of Steve's persuasion? What do you think? And try argument over abuse next time. If you're going to be an atheist then George Bernard Shaw is your model rather than the dreadful Dawkins huff-puffng away.

Reg Varney

Nick K, I'm a bit surprised this thread is still going but yes, that's certainly what I was driving at. We are at liberty to postulate "that which enabled the Big Bang" as God. ("Preceded the Big Bang" is a phrase we would probably struggle to make concise.)

I concede that this anaemic conception is some distance removed from the personal god of the Abrahamic religions. It is closer to the terms in which, say, Spinoza and Kant discussed the conundrum.

As I won't be able to return to CH today, maybe I could also refer you to the foundational work on Big Bang by the Jesuit priest Georges Lemaitre, assuming you are not already familiar with it. Cheers for now.

salieri

"Thankfully we in the UK are leading the way on this". What a profoundly depressing comment. A discussion which has lasted thousands of years - probably the greatest single discussion in epistemology - is casually dismissed with the arrogance peculiar to the narrow-minded. There is no greater conceit than that of the atheist - and I speak as an agnostic - than to call all religion "childish", and to assert that anyone who believes otherwise has no brain.

And as for "knowing" that there is no God, Patrick cannot know what knowledge means.

Alf Tupper

Patrick.

"Any one with half a brain knows there is no such thing as a God."

Those of us with the full kit do have the advantage no doubt.

hadrian

The Aposlte Paul says that 'every thought must be made captive to Christ' and Christ Himself pointedly taught that not just outward action but inward thought and motive must be pure or we fall under God's wrath and curse. Well might mankind feel 'guilt' in every recess of their sentient being, since every one of us is born a morally fallen, morally impotent, spiritually rebellious being, far short of the glory of God. When men refuse in pride to accept this their fanatical self confidence and self righteousness ( nowadays, of the secular/ideological variety!) start to flow in manifold baleful ways.

hadrian

Theism is 'only supported by faith' we are told scoffingly above. Well, what a blinding revelation that is! However, let's just turn the tables- atheism, equally, is supported by 'blind faith'. There are sound rational arguments for God's existence which atheism fails miserably to counter. But in the end as Scripture warns- 'The just shall live by FAITH.' Note that closely- by saying no faith,no God you are stating there's no ultimate Justice! For treating existence like( though never very consistently as secular indignation often shows!) that we are all accountable, finally to the Ultimate seat of existence and Judgement.

Nick Kaplan

Reg; I am not sure why we need to postulate anything before the big bang. Given that anything that preceded the big bang is outside the realms of human investigation any postulated hypothesis is completely untestable and consequently doesn’t meet the standards required for consideration (given that there could be nothing to consider).

Further, given that all our knowledge is derived from within the universe we cannot even use logic to speculate what can or cannot occur outside it. I.e. the claim ‘every event must have a cause’ is true for all (so far observed) events in the universe, but from this it does not follow that this is a necessary truth outside the universe. Thus it isn’t even a necessary truth that anything at all had to precede the big bang which may itself be the first cause of the universe.

Saying that the Big Bang must itself have been caused is firstly not something that we can verify and secondly is a comment equally true of any postulated cause of the big bang, even God. One could of course (as is often done) define God as a necessary being i.e. one that did not require a cause. But in doing this one has denied that all existent things need a cause since at least one didn’t. But, if it is being denied that all existent things need a cause, one cannot at the same time hold that it is a necessary truth that either the Big Bang or the universe needed a cause (on the basis that they exist/ happened), and thus there is still no reason to hypothesise God.

I.e. God’s existence either requires the same explanation as does the universe or, in postulating his existence one has denied the very grounds on which it was asserted that he needed to be postulated. God is therefore, particularly under your very weak definition, a completely useless and absolutely untestable hypothesis.

Nick Kaplan

On the other hand the God of the bible is to an extent testable given that certain claims are made for him e.g. His omnipotence and benevolence.

Sadly God fails all such tests. The classic example of the problem of evil should be enough to disprove the existence of a biblical God. The only response I have ever heard to this problem is that God gave humans free will. But this response has 3 flaws.

(1)It does not account for natural disasters and general poverty in Africa which are not the result of any particular will, except maybe Gods, in which case he is either not omnipotent or not benevolent or, more likely, not existent. Whichever it is the God of the bible doesn’t exist since he is said to have all three of these properties.

(2)Why is free will good? If we would behave better if we did not have free will then it makes no sense to say that a benevolent God gave us free will in the first place.

(3) Finally there is nothing inconsistent with the idea of free will and universally good human nature. If one can freely choose to behave well i.e. if free will and goodness are not incompatible God could, in his omnipotence, have created us with natures such that we always choose to do good whilst still allowing us to be free. Since this is not the case God either is not omnipotent, or benevolent or existent. To deny this one must suggest there is something incompatible with the notion of free will and that of choosing to do good; if they are not inconsistent than an all powerful God must be able to make the 2 exist together for all people.

hadrian

The argument that asks where God came from and what caused Him was apparently what set old Bertrand Russell on his depressing atheist way. Of course he misconstrued the ancient argument that every EFFECT has a cause, blithely ignoring the fact God is not an effect but the ground of existence.
As for the argument from theodicy ( the problem of evil) there is one simple answer- God is the One Who is the standard of what is right and wrong, nobody else and no standard outside of His Personal existence. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans and Job clearly prove the point. Deny God and you deny the very idea of evil, in any case. That is what as a poster above has gleefully pointed out, our nation is leading the world in and the miserable results are all around to see. Our self hatred and repudiation of our heritage is coming and will continue to come home to roost. Europe's just as bad. Little wonder we are defenceless against an aggressive ideology of oppression that threatens all our traditional civil liberties. That is one result of rejecting God. The Lord laughs His enemies to scorn yet still there is grace and time to 'repent' or rethink our lives.