Moderately interesting article about atheists putting ads on London buses. Some of the ads read "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
The article says that Richard Dawkins opposes putting the word "probably" in the ads. In my opinion, though, that turns atheism into a religion, but maybe I'm missing something.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I think those ads are pretty cool, but I agree with you - I don't want to see "There is no God" on the side of a bus any more than "God is watching you" or whatever.
ReplyDelete(Note: In this post I am going to ignore strict atheism (i.e. there is definitely no god) and consider atheists to be those who are agnostic but believe the level of uncertainty in their beliefs to be so small that it is negligible.)
ReplyDeleteI really love the way you phrased your point about removing the word probably from the message; one of the most important things that separates science (and thereby agnosticism and the above-defined loose atheism) from religion is the willingness of scientists (and agnostics) to accept and understand an assumed level of uncertainty in their beliefs.
To state that there is no uncertainty, that your beliefs are absolute fact despite a lack of proof (or even in the face of a counterproof or counterexample) is almost a definition of organized religion in the modern era (Hooray for outrageous generalizations!). This unwillingness to acknowledge uncertainty is often called faith, and is usually described as a positive trait, a strength of spirit that those of us who are agnostic cannot possibly properly comprehend without seeing the light of [insert God/religion name here].
Science and its desire to limit uncertainty while acknowledging the proper role of that uncertainty (i.e. to act as a check on overconfidence and to guide future paths of research) is what agnostics should be promoting. We should not be mired in debate about the existence of god; rather, let us focus on holding up science and reason as the principal values upon which we base our actions and beliefs. If we are right, and I am almost (imagine the word almost to be italicized because I don't know how to do that in a comment) certain we are, then we can hope that our constant promotion of the scientific method and of reason will begin to permeate religion, forcing believers to eventually face the fact that no perceivable evidence (sure, anyone can argue that incomprehensible (in the 'humans cannot conceive of god's being properly' style) evidence makes them right, but they are just crazy people) supports their claims.
I can't tell if that was coherent or gibberish; I'll let you decide.
Very well put. I think we'd all be a lot happier if people lived the way you described in that last paragraph, ie, logically.
ReplyDeleteDo we know of a better phrase than "loose Atheist"? I've been trying to figure it out for myself (because I so desperately need to label myself). Based on the scientific evidence I've seen, I am convinced that there no "higher power," but my view could obviously change if presented with sound evidence to the contrary (much the same way I feel about aliens (of the extraterrestrial variety), ghosts, etc.). I think that organized religion has probably done more harm than good throughout history, but I don't want to see it totally abolished, because (a) people delude themselves about one thing or another to get through the day anyway, a loving "father" in the sky or a welcoming congregation really aren't any worse than anything else, and (b) people would have (and will) figure out a reason to go war and hurt each other anyway. But man, some people really are brainwashed, sometimes in a harmful way that causes them to ignore logic.
So what do you categorize myself as on the facebook profile, guys?
Bart - I don't think that was gibberish. After all, it opened by praising me, so how could you have gone wrong?
ReplyDeleteKatie - Unless I'm missing something, I'd think "agnostic" would suffice ...