2009/01/15
Silly responses to the atheist bus campaign
I'm loving the atheist bus campaign, and amused by the wide variety of silly responses from the religious:
Silly response #1: The ad should be banned, because the it is untrue
This view has been expressed by the noisy Christian activist Stephen Green, who has formally made a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority on this premise. For such a complaint to be upheld, the ASA would have to be shown some strong evidence (the sort that would stand up in a court of law) that God exists -- strong enough at least to make it unlikely that God does not exist. The likelihood of any such evidence being found is remote, to say the least. Apparently, experts consulted on whether this complaint had any chance of success responded with "peals of laughter." (Daily Telegraph Newspaper and elsewhere.)
Silly response #2: The ad should be banned, because the it is indecent
According to the same newspaper report, a number of individuals have complained to the ASA saying that the advert is offensive or indecent. Again, no chance. Do those people think we're living in the 18th century? Or in Australia?
Silly response #3: The word "probably" indicates that the atheists aren't convinced of what they're saying.
Tosh. The main purpose of "probably", as stated by Ariane Sherine, who came up with the slogan and the idea for the campaign, is to avoid the advert being banned by the Advertising Standards Authority on grounds that the existence of God is a "matter of opinion". It has the bonus of inclusiveness, encompassing as it does the views of many agnostics, as well as being less confrontational towards the religious than a categorical statement would have been (not that this has prevented numerous persons of religious persuasion from taking offence at the ads).
Silly response #4: It is wrong to tell people what they should believe, ergo, the atheist bus campaign is wrong.
Where do the adverts tell people what they should believe? They say "There is probably no God". They don't say "There is probably no God, and you should believe this proposition". If the latter is implicit, then every statement of every proposition is an instance of "telling people what they should believe", and therefore every statement of every proposition is morally wrong. What nonsense! Especially when it comes from one such as policywatcher, who spends quite a lot of time on GUT telling people what they should believe, sometimes about politics, and sometimes about IT issues.
Silly response #5: By saying what they believe on the side of a bus, atheists become as bad as religious evangelists.
(This is related to, but not the same as, #2) If proselytizing is bad, regardless of what you proselytize, does that mean it is bad to put up adverts to, say, persuade people that drink-driving is bad (or something else you think is true and good)? Also, is it literally true that the atheists are behaving as badly as Christian evangelists? Aren't Christian evangelists a bit more pushy than that? Don't they organize rallies, knock on strangers' doors, stand in corners ranting through a megaphone, to spread their message? Worse still, don't they try to ban material that conflicts with their views? Are the atheists as bad as that?
Silly response #6: Atheists need to acknowledge that religion can be good for society.
This view has been expressed by former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey. I suppose this attack is aimed at the second part of the ad, the bit that says, "Now stop worrying and enjoy your life". Two problems: First, it is open to debate whether religion is ever a net good for society, so atheists obviously are not required to acknowledge it as if it were true. Second, even if religion can be a net good, it can also, as Lord Carey in his phrasing tacitly admits, be a net bad. If following one of the Abrahamic religions is currently a net bad in the UK (perhaps because it inspires anxiety about one's possible sinfulness and damnation to hell, and so prevents people from fully enjoying their lives), the admonition in the advert is a good one, regardless of whether some other religion could in some other circumstances could be a net good.
Silly response #7: Atheists are failing to respect the rights of the religious to hold their beliefs.
No, they're not. They're fully respecting those rights, and at the same time respecting their own right to express their own beliefs. Respecting another's belief does not mean keeping quiet about your own, and letting the other rant on ceaselessly.
Some responses inspired by the ads have been general attacks on atheism have been inspired by the ads, such as these two, which crop up repeatedly, like bad pennies:
Silly response #8: Stalin was bad, so atheism is bad
Most of Stalin's persecutions and cruelties had nothing to do with suppressing religion, and even when they did, he was inspired by Communism, not atheism. Mere atheism does not inspire anything at all, in particular. Another politician who was a self-described atheist and ruled at the same time as Stalin was Clement Attlee, held by many to have been Britain's best modern Prime Minister. One of Clem Attlee's achievements was the establishment of Britain's National Health Service, a great institutional monument to kindness of spirit. Yet, I have never heard this credited to atheism, and if I ever did, I would have to laugh.
Silly response #9: Atheism is mistaken because God's existence cannot be disproved
This argument is worse than weak -- it is pathetic drivel. The God of the Bible certainly does not exist. If you make up some kind of blethery vague thing, carefully constructed to evade any obvious disproof, and call that God, as theologians have increasingly done since the Middle Ages, then good for you, but note, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe in such a thing. Mere assertion that such a thing might conceivably exist, despite total lack of evidence for its existence, is not enough to justify actually believing in it. Otherwise, we all ought to believe in fairies, goblins, centaurs, dragons, and every other fantasy anyone has ever dreamt up that is not a logical (as opposed to mere physical) impossibility.
Strange enemies of the atheist bus campaign:
Curiously, a few people calling themselves agnostics or pantheists have expressed vehement opposition to the ads, apparently out of a strong emotional loyalty to religion. It takes all sorts, I suppose.
There's no particular reason why the vaguely conceived "God" of pantheism should be called "God", unless one is nostalgic for real religion. Pantheism is a mildly silly idea (being a belief that is completely unjustified and unjustifiable), but is harmless, and has nothing particularly to do with Christianity or any of the religions that tend to annoy atheists. If there were only atheists and pantheists on the planet, there'd be no call for an atheist bus.
The least silly response:
The official response of the Methodists to the ads has been to welcome them, on the basis that they get people to think and talk about religious ideas. It makes sense, if one is confident of one's religious faith, to expect that the more people think and talk about religious ideas, the more likely they are to sign up. Steven Green's approach (attempting to get the ads banned) suggests a lack of confidence.
Silly response #1: The ad should be banned, because the it is untrue
This view has been expressed by the noisy Christian activist Stephen Green, who has formally made a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority on this premise. For such a complaint to be upheld, the ASA would have to be shown some strong evidence (the sort that would stand up in a court of law) that God exists -- strong enough at least to make it unlikely that God does not exist. The likelihood of any such evidence being found is remote, to say the least. Apparently, experts consulted on whether this complaint had any chance of success responded with "peals of laughter." (Daily Telegraph Newspaper and elsewhere.)
Silly response #2: The ad should be banned, because the it is indecent
According to the same newspaper report, a number of individuals have complained to the ASA saying that the advert is offensive or indecent. Again, no chance. Do those people think we're living in the 18th century? Or in Australia?
Silly response #3: The word "probably" indicates that the atheists aren't convinced of what they're saying.
Tosh. The main purpose of "probably", as stated by Ariane Sherine, who came up with the slogan and the idea for the campaign, is to avoid the advert being banned by the Advertising Standards Authority on grounds that the existence of God is a "matter of opinion". It has the bonus of inclusiveness, encompassing as it does the views of many agnostics, as well as being less confrontational towards the religious than a categorical statement would have been (not that this has prevented numerous persons of religious persuasion from taking offence at the ads).
Silly response #4: It is wrong to tell people what they should believe, ergo, the atheist bus campaign is wrong.
Where do the adverts tell people what they should believe? They say "There is probably no God". They don't say "There is probably no God, and you should believe this proposition". If the latter is implicit, then every statement of every proposition is an instance of "telling people what they should believe", and therefore every statement of every proposition is morally wrong. What nonsense! Especially when it comes from one such as policywatcher, who spends quite a lot of time on GUT telling people what they should believe, sometimes about politics, and sometimes about IT issues.
Silly response #5: By saying what they believe on the side of a bus, atheists become as bad as religious evangelists.
(This is related to, but not the same as, #2) If proselytizing is bad, regardless of what you proselytize, does that mean it is bad to put up adverts to, say, persuade people that drink-driving is bad (or something else you think is true and good)? Also, is it literally true that the atheists are behaving as badly as Christian evangelists? Aren't Christian evangelists a bit more pushy than that? Don't they organize rallies, knock on strangers' doors, stand in corners ranting through a megaphone, to spread their message? Worse still, don't they try to ban material that conflicts with their views? Are the atheists as bad as that?
Silly response #6: Atheists need to acknowledge that religion can be good for society.
This view has been expressed by former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey. I suppose this attack is aimed at the second part of the ad, the bit that says, "Now stop worrying and enjoy your life". Two problems: First, it is open to debate whether religion is ever a net good for society, so atheists obviously are not required to acknowledge it as if it were true. Second, even if religion can be a net good, it can also, as Lord Carey in his phrasing tacitly admits, be a net bad. If following one of the Abrahamic religions is currently a net bad in the UK (perhaps because it inspires anxiety about one's possible sinfulness and damnation to hell, and so prevents people from fully enjoying their lives), the admonition in the advert is a good one, regardless of whether some other religion could in some other circumstances could be a net good.
Silly response #7: Atheists are failing to respect the rights of the religious to hold their beliefs.
No, they're not. They're fully respecting those rights, and at the same time respecting their own right to express their own beliefs. Respecting another's belief does not mean keeping quiet about your own, and letting the other rant on ceaselessly.
Some responses inspired by the ads have been general attacks on atheism have been inspired by the ads, such as these two, which crop up repeatedly, like bad pennies:
Silly response #8: Stalin was bad, so atheism is bad
Most of Stalin's persecutions and cruelties had nothing to do with suppressing religion, and even when they did, he was inspired by Communism, not atheism. Mere atheism does not inspire anything at all, in particular. Another politician who was a self-described atheist and ruled at the same time as Stalin was Clement Attlee, held by many to have been Britain's best modern Prime Minister. One of Clem Attlee's achievements was the establishment of Britain's National Health Service, a great institutional monument to kindness of spirit. Yet, I have never heard this credited to atheism, and if I ever did, I would have to laugh.
Silly response #9: Atheism is mistaken because God's existence cannot be disproved
This argument is worse than weak -- it is pathetic drivel. The God of the Bible certainly does not exist. If you make up some kind of blethery vague thing, carefully constructed to evade any obvious disproof, and call that God, as theologians have increasingly done since the Middle Ages, then good for you, but note, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to believe in such a thing. Mere assertion that such a thing might conceivably exist, despite total lack of evidence for its existence, is not enough to justify actually believing in it. Otherwise, we all ought to believe in fairies, goblins, centaurs, dragons, and every other fantasy anyone has ever dreamt up that is not a logical (as opposed to mere physical) impossibility.
Strange enemies of the atheist bus campaign:
Curiously, a few people calling themselves agnostics or pantheists have expressed vehement opposition to the ads, apparently out of a strong emotional loyalty to religion. It takes all sorts, I suppose.
There's no particular reason why the vaguely conceived "God" of pantheism should be called "God", unless one is nostalgic for real religion. Pantheism is a mildly silly idea (being a belief that is completely unjustified and unjustifiable), but is harmless, and has nothing particularly to do with Christianity or any of the religions that tend to annoy atheists. If there were only atheists and pantheists on the planet, there'd be no call for an atheist bus.
The least silly response:
The official response of the Methodists to the ads has been to welcome them, on the basis that they get people to think and talk about religious ideas. It makes sense, if one is confident of one's religious faith, to expect that the more people think and talk about religious ideas, the more likely they are to sign up. Steven Green's approach (attempting to get the ads banned) suggests a lack of confidence.
Labels: advertising, atheism, atheist bus campaign, censorship, religion
# posted by Rebecca Necker : 12:33 AM
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]